Mel Gibson and the Crop Circles, what a crap!

Rackhir said:
Well they were essentially trying to "crash" the alien systems (always easier than actually doing something) and the aliens were estabished as using at least some "earth compatible tech" like the timing signal transmitted through the com sats. Plus, Jeff was supposed to be an uber hacker and they had access to an unsecured terminal (the fighter), it was reasonable within the constraints of the plot.

Thats how many of us in the computer security field seemed to have interpreted it. The whole premis is that our modern information technology WAS alien technology scavenged from the Roswell crash, lock stock and barrel. So it all worked together...

But we all know that it really came from talking dirt elves:

Wikipedia said:
Beyond the design of computers Cray led a "streamlined life". He avoided publicity and there are a number of unusual tales about his life away from work. He enjoyed skiing, wind surfing, tennis and other sports. Another favourite pastime was digging a tunnel under his home; he once attributed the secret to his success to elves that talked to him there. "While I'm digging in the tunnel, the elves will often come to me with solutions to my problem."

So modern computers are really Drow technology.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I just re-watched Signs. This time, I was looking at it from the perspective of "assume these may not be aliens". I thought that was fair, as the first time I saw it I went in assuming they were aliens.

I noted the following:

1) The little girl, and the mother, were having precognitive dreams about these events.
2) The boy's very first reaction, in the first 5 minutes of the film, to seeing the crop circles is "I think God did it".
3) The very first sign spotted in the movie when seen from above ends in the shape of a pitchfork.
4) The creatures arguably look demon like. They are not your typical "grays". They do not have small bodies and big eyes. They have super speed, jump very high, their skin automatically camouflages to anything around it, they hide well in shadows, they have partial hooves and claws, a somewhat thick carapace, and attack with a poison gas from their wrists.
5) When they first hear the creatures on the baby monitor, it sounds like a lot of moaning and wailing, along with the clicking.
6) Animals have an internal sense against these creatures, and go nuts in their mere presence.
7) The second crop sign to be seen is an above view over India, and the location of the crop signs is vaguely in the shape of an upside down cross (though this isn't a particularly strong image the way it is presented, if it is intentional).
8) The creatures demonstrate no technology whatsoever.
9) There are no pictures of ships in the sky, ONLY lights. Things die when they approach the lights. The lights are invisible during the day.
10) The lights in the sky appear overnight, and they specifically say they detected nothing coming in by radar. They just appear.
11) It is quite obvious why the creatures wear no clothing or protective gear - their primary ability is that their skin automatically camouflages, and that would be hampered by clothing.
12) The creatures only attack at night.
13) They say the "Battle turned in the middle east, three small cities there found a primative way to defeat them."
14) It is not at all clear that water is actually killing them. When water spills on them, their camoflauge ability fails in the area hit, and they seem to experience some kind of anguish and fear. But the creature is only seen to die as a result of a very strong whack upside the head by a baseball bat, and the only actual clear injury aside from the bat is from a knife cutting off its fingers. Areas hit by water don't look pretty, but it's not really clear that the area is actually injured.

They sure don't come across as aliens that travelled the galaxy in space ships using technology. Whatever they are, they are a lot more primative than your typical iconic high-tech "gray" space alien.

I think the argument can be made that these creatures are demons. Or, they are aliens. Or, they are creatures from another dimension. It is left quite up in the air. But I no longer think the folks who saw these creatures as demons or something from another dimension are as totally off base as I used to.
 
Last edited:

Thank you, Mistwell, for posting your observations. Makes me want to rent and watch the movie again with "demons" in mind rather than "aliens".

Quasqueton
 


jester47 said:
Thats how many of us in the computer security field seemed to have interpreted it. The whole premis is that our modern information technology WAS alien technology scavenged from the Roswell crash, lock stock and barrel. So it all worked together...

But we all know that it really came from talking dirt elves:



So modern computers are really Drow technology.

You know, that could explain a lot about computers. Especially Windows.
Especially if it was AD&D drow - Windows works probably better in the Underdark.
 

Quasqueton said:
What is your sig referring to? I don't get it. I've wondered about it for along time. What/where says getting pulped by a mace is a "good result"?

It is from an old conversation concerning the elves of the Silmarillion. In that conversation, someone was talking about how powerful First Age elves were, and said that one (Fingolfin, if I recall correctly), fought hand to hand with Morgoroth himself "with good result". The elf in question was smashed (along with his horse) in a single blow by Morgoroth. Leading to the response quoted in my .sig.
 

Arnwyn said:
Nah, of course it's warranted. Movie-making is movie-making, and since "gotchas" are M. Night's schtick, it's shows he knows about movie-making and the opening scene as much as anyone - just like you said, he counted on it. (And no surprise, since it was a warranted assumption based on film-making basics... one doesn't count on people making unwarranted assumptions - one does, however, count on people making warranted assumptions. Thus the 'dirty pool' with the opening shot.)

No, it is not warranted. It is predictable, but in the context of the story, unwarranted. You made an assumption based upon other stories, and assumed this one would be the same. Your assumption was predictable. Your assumption was, however, unwarranted.

I'm just saying that by showing the demonmobile, for no reason, was just foolish and pointless - something that doesn't make the movie better and in fact leads to criticisms.

Except no actual "demonmobile" was shown. Lights in the sky were shown, but no actual "ship" or "spacecraft" or anything similar. Once again, you assumed that it was one thing, based upon no actual evidence.
 

Storm Raven said:
No, it is not warranted. It is predictable, but in the context of the story, unwarranted. You made an assumption based upon other stories, and assumed this one would be the same. Your assumption was predictable. Your assumption was, however, unwarranted.
It was warranted. The assumption would be made by audiences based on how movies are made - whether it's "this story" or not is entirely irrelevant. M. Night knew what he was doing and used specific filmmaking techniques when he showed that scene in the opening shot of The Village - and it was necessary to do so to keep up with his 'gotcha' schtick. As I clearly said before: you don't count on people to make unwarranted assumptions to carry a movie... but you do count on them making warranted assumptions. In any case, M. Night's schtick speaks for itself. (And just to nip in the bud any any wacky arguments about definitions, some synonyms for "warrant" include: "merit", "justify", "afirm", "deserve", "call for", "demand", "necessitate". But whatever.)

We're not going to agree on this, Storm Raven. Sorry.

Except no actual "demonmobile" was shown. Lights in the sky were shown, but no actual "ship" or "spacecraft" or anything similar. Once again, you assumed that it was one thing, based upon no actual evidence.
"Once again", I didn't assume it was anything - I've always said that the "demon" interpretation was perfectly valid (when I saw the movie oh so long ago, I was ambivalent about the interpretation [or more correctly, I was apathetic, because the movie sucked]). I was only talking about filmmaking techniques. I do agree with your statement, here. (Thanks for the details/reminders, Mistwell!)
 

Arnwyn said:
It was warranted.

No, it was not. It was predictable, but that does not mean it was warranted.

The assumption would be made by audiences based on how movies are made - whether it's "this story" or not is entirely irrelevant. M. Night knew what he was doing and used specific filmmaking techniques when he showed that scene in the opening shot of The Village - and it was necessary to do so to keep up with his 'gotcha' schtick. As I clearly said before: you don't count on people to make unwarranted assumptions to carry a movie... but you do count on them making warranted assumptions. In any case, M. Night's schtick speaks for itself. (And just to nip in the bud any any wacky arguments about definitions, some synonyms for "warrant" include: "merit", "justify", "afirm", "deserve", "call for", "demand", "necessitate". But whatever.)

The assumption was made based on how other stories are structured. There was nothing in this story that would lead one to the conclusion you drew. That is why it is an unwarranted assumption. The fact that it was something that was predictable that you would do is an entirely different matter. However, the fact that something is predictable does not mean it is warranted. The bare fact remains that you assumed something with no evidence, and rather than face that reality, you got mad at the story teller because he didn't tell the story "right", based upon assumptions you made by introducing facts that were never found in the actual story told. Basically, you are saying that you want the same stories over and over again, with only the window dressing changed. How dull that would be.
 

Storm Raven said:
No, it was not. It was predictable, but that does not mean it was warranted.
Like I said, we're not going to agree on this, Storm Raven. Sorry.

Basically, you are saying that you want the same stories over and over again, with only the window dressing changed.
Nope.
 

Remove ads

Top