I thought Signs was lame and boring.
The Mothman Prophecies was also pretty dull.
13 Ghosts, however, was quite good.

------------------
"When all else fails, eat pie."
-¬thoughts from beyond observance

For all you people who seem to have the attention span of a gnat:

It was explained in the movie that the aliens likely watched the weather patterns to determine when they would land. Thus, they bolted when they did because it was soon going to rain.

Therefore, they likely did come in contact with liquid water, and therefore knew to avoid it like the plague.

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

I thought it was a good movie, but I agree the ending seemed kinda quickly done. Although I did find the brother and the baseball bat entertaining.

Mothman was interesting too because it was BASED off a true story, but didn't so much freak me out too much.

Although many people disagree with me, I found The Ring to be a pretty scary movie.

Thanks for the insult. That aside, Earth's atmosphere is rarely ever completely dry. You have other problems, such as running through fields of corn which are mostly water (or covered in water, if irrigation is used). There's also the matter of, assuming the aliens are collecting the people for food, what happens when they sink their teeth into flesh which is over 90% water.


-Fox

I thought signs was a lame try to recreat an Alfred Hitchcock thriller. The only part that frightened me was when the dog barks out of no where(that was freaky). One of the best thrillers I've seen in Session 9 it was 10x better than Signs it truly freaked me out.

------------------
*Bjorn*
muhahahha FIRE!!!!!!!! >:) ;(.
hi

What's your point? Oxygen in the air is the exact same chemical as pure oxygen, but take a single breath of pure oxygen and you die.



------------------
All the prism in the world couldn't make hue.

------------------
You're entering a world of pain.

You assume it's identical simply because we've never observed it to be different. You know, 100 years ago they didn't realize there were colors outside our visible spectrum... yet they still existed, didn't they?

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

[This message has been edited by Correction (edited March 01, 2004).]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my question.


-Fox

I don't think it's quite that simple. One Apollo mission, I think 1, had an all oxygen atmosphere in the capsule. It worked until it caused that flash fire...

------------------
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.

13 Ghosts
Pros:
• Excellent idea.
• The ghosts were excellent.
• Pretty freaky.

Cons:
• Rushed - too short = no character development.
• Acting was pretty bleh.
• That annoying little kid didn't die.
• Ghosts should have been more developed - many ghosts didn't actually do anything.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was there some part of the movie that said the aliens would eat them raw, as oppose to, say, cooking them?

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: The Darkside Chronicles

Not when it's in the presence of nitrogen, argon, and trace elements that air possesses.



... They would have to be rendered into powder before all water was removed.


-Fox

[This message has been edited by Firefox (edited March 02, 2004).]

I meant it tongue in cheek. Sorry if it came off harsh. It was a vain attempt at silliness.

To address your claims, 3 things:

1) Living in the midwest, I can tell you corn fields are not always wet, especially near harvest in the fall. The ground is actually quite dry and solid, although I am not saying underneath is not irrigated.

2) It is only the liquid form of water the aliens seem to have an adverse reaction to.

3) It's called suspension of disbelief. IF you want reality, go watch a documentary (unless it's a Michael Moore 'documentary', then you have to suspend your disbelief there too, because he lies in his movies to make his points). Unless you really believe that there was an ancient barbarian named Conan, or that a Predator ran amok in a city...etc. You get the point yet? It's a Hollywood movie for crying out loud. I don't sit there and say "Darth Vader would never REALLY do that. This movie sucks."

Serious question - is the concept of escapism lost on you?

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

I live in Kansas. I'm aware of dry and wet periods of time, but I also know that fields tend to be irrigated.



Again, it's plain silly. That would mean the aliens are defenseless against a horde of preteens armed with Super Soakers. To attack a planet which has 70% of its surface covered in liquid water, not to mention a water component in its atmosphere, while they seem related to the Wicked Witch of the West, is just absurd.



Not in the least. I want a story that makes sense, though, and having aliens who die on contact with water, use no armor protection, and lack ranged weapons, seems silly to me.

Also, why did they need crop circles as "navigational aids"? Why couldn't they rely on natural or artificial landmarks? Another problem the movie has.


-Fox

Hmm...

I think I would find you an interesting case study Fox, if only to see if your cultural transferrence to fictional characters carries over into the real world.

I find it odd that you give off the implication in your rationale that because you fail to see the logic in it, it must be silly.

If I wanted to get all technical, I could say that perhaps there was something in human bodies the aliens needed that warranted the risk, that the reason for not using long range weapons was that this was an abduction - not a takeover - and that they did not want to hurt whatever it is in human biology that makes us so valuable to them, that the crop circles were done to coordinate landing sites where there would be no condensation - something that you can't exactly rely on natural landmarks for (and what would you call crop circles? - artificial landmarks); but hey, then I would be overanalyzing the movie, and where is the fun in that?

Also, it seems odd that you would find something 'silly' simply because it isn't how 'you' would have done it. Seems a little ego-centric to me. There are many ways to do something, and no one person knows everything. So if the subject of aliens were to come up, how are we to say that because they didn't conform to our personal beliefs on the subject, its ridiculous?

I sort of have the image in my head of some alien somewhere who just watched some form of entertainment somewhere about an alien to them invading their planet, and that alien commenting that the entertainment was 'silly' because the invaders breathed an oxygen composite, and not methane like they do.

Maybe the 2 of you are kindred spirits?



------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Fear -- any work of fiction must build an understanding of what is and isn't held in disbelief, and must also keep in mind things like its audience, etc. It's a world-building thing. The more it's based on reality, the more people will expect it to follow their understanding of it. Sorry, but Firefox has valid points that, if I were to have written it, would revise it to attempt to avoid such breaking from the illusion that the fiction is real.

------------------
Check out the following stories over at the Interactive Story Board:
The Never-ending Story Thread or visit the new webcomic version!
The Vision Cycle series
Featured Story: The Darkside Chronicles

I don't know Geb. I think that part of the charm of the movie is that something so taken for granted by us can be so volitile to something else.

I mean, when thinking of an alien - its all new ground. Therefore, one should not have any expectations on how they behave, what they react to, etc.

I see where you are coming from, but I respectfully disagree.

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Or it could have been an independence day style scenario where the aliens were forced to leave their home planet and Earth was the first "habitable" planet they encountered.

If they'd never encountered water before they wouldn't know it was a risk. It really is quite simple...

Well since it is unrealized by humans I thought it would be painfully obvious that I wouldn't know.
The problem with people is that they always assume that just because they've never observed something before, it doesn't exist. You fail to grasp the fact that the universe as we know it could (and most likely is) be a very small percentage of what there is to learn about it.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

Bingo.

In otherwords, it's egotistical to think that because you haven't seen something, it's out of the realm of possibility...

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Not only is it egotistical, but it's a very dumb way of looking at things if you have any intention of learning about the world at all.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

... Yes, it's egotistical to rely on the scientific method and common sense.



In other words, you argue from ignorance?



I find it silly because it is silly. Aliens invading Earth after crossing interstellar distances, apparently concerned about nuclear weapons (though they would have to have technology that would protect them from such hazards), simply attacked bogey-man style, wore no protection (again, remember that Earth's atmosphere does have a moisture component, so creatures that dissolve on contact with water would have to wear suits), no ranged weapons, not to mention the disparity between an alien that can leap from standing on a roof across someone's back yard, to land in a corn field, yet cannot break down a wooden door?

Again, I've yet to see adequate answers to:

-why they would attack a planet which has over 70% of its surface covered in water
-abduct humans for food, despite the fact that we're over 80-90% water by weight (even cooking us wouldn't eliminate most of the water)
-use crop circles as navigational aids (we use GPS, stars, and other navigation aids, and we can't even cross interstellar distances; imagine the navigation technology required for that).

In essence, you haven't made one solid counter argument. Even Phil Plait found Signs to have been poorly written.


-Fox

test?

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Sorry, had a connection issue.

Anyway, I had this long-winded, point by point breakdown for you Fox, but the stupid internet ate it.

Essentially, what it said was this - you, and Phil Plait in his review for that matter, seem to have trouble seperating your personal opinions from what you think is reasonable, factual, and logical. Neither of you is an astrophysicist, so you make broad jumps in assumption on the subject of sapce travel and nukes, and you essentially just repeated yourself, and acted like the fact you repeated yourself suddenly makes every argument you made true.

Sorry Fox, not going down that road. If you have a personal opinion, fine, but I expect you to be able to stop from addressing your opinions as if they were facts if you ever really want to get an honest point across.

Otherwise, all you really are doing is blowing hot air. Blowing it convincingly in some cases, mind you, but it is still hot air nonetheless...

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

... How is it a fact that Signs is a well-written movie? That's more like an opinion, except that mine (and Dr. Plait's) is based on fact.

I do not see you presenting any arguments at all. What I do see, however, are thinly-veiled efforts at provoking a fight, an assumption based on observation since your "attention span of a gnat" comment.

I've already made my argument on why the movie was badly written. I'm still waiting for a rebuttal.


-Fox

Fox's opinions are based from fact. Scientific, proven fact. And not to mention plain and simple logic.
Personally, I don't see Fox addressing any personal opinions of his. He's just presenting factual arguments that clearly outline that the movie is full of ridiculous inconsistencies. You've yet to produce any plausible counter-arguments, aside from the little "maybe water has special properties when it's not a liquid causing it to be not water-like." I'm assuming from this you've never taken a physics or chemistry class in your life.



Oh the irony.

------------------
"When all else fails, eat pie."
-¬thoughts from beyond observance

[This message has been edited by Jin (edited March 03, 2004).]

1 - I would not consider any of this common sense, and I don't know why anyone would.
2 - I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to enjoy a movie and take into consideration that things could be different than the way we think they are. I know the scientific method says nothing is fact until proven, but guess what - the law of gravity is the law of gravity, whether we've proven it or not. My point is that in the real world, sure, the scientific method is the best we've got. But when discussion something completely unknown, such as the properties of an alien in a movie, I think it would be wiser to assume that there are things happening that we could never even imagine.
The purpose of the scientific method is not to limit a person's imagination, it's to systemize a learning of the universe.

------------------
Do you have stairs in your house?

Jin, was there any point to your post other than being a FireFox groupie?


Correction, you hit the nail right on the head.

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

er, he said quite alot in his post actually. Trying to dismiss the whole thing by calling him a "firefox groupie" is disappointing and obvious.



------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian 1 & 2 | Gonkmeg
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

Why not? Isn't it common sense that the Earth's surface is covered mostly in water, and that moisture is to be found in the atmosphere?



Right, but there's a fine line where you can suspend disbelief, and where you can't in the face of really bad writing.



It's not completely unknown. We see aliens prancing around naked in the movie. They possess no protection, no weapons of any sort (save for that lousy gas gimmick). They also dissolve on contact with water, so it doesn't take a Nobel laureate to see that it's just dumb for aliens with such a weakness to invade a planet that has a high amount of water, either in liquid, solid, or vapor form (you still haven't proven what properties would nullify water vapor's effects on the aliens). Of course, that's still ignoring the idiotic concept of using crop circles as navigation aids, when they would have to have better technology in order to cross the distances they had.



Who said anything about limiting a person's imagination? If you were to apply scientific method to Lord of the Rings, you'd be crazy, since it's obviously fantasy. Signs, on the other hand, is grounded in present-day reality, so I doubt the aliens have magic to protect them (of course if they did, why didn't it protect that alien from melting when a few drops of water touched its skin?)



That's the best argument you have? No wonder you've lost the debate.


-Fox

FireFox groupie... never in my time spent at these boards would I ever think I would be called that.


I just felt that you seem to always justify your own opinions as fact, and everyone else's use of fact as opinion. I had hopes of outlining to you that what FireFox had previously said was not opinionative, but factual. Obviously, you still choose to not recognize this.

------------------
"When all else fails, eat pie."
-¬thoughts from beyond observance

Jaiph


There are such things as forum groupies, who find someone who they respect, and will defend him to the death, even in the face of a losing argument. Sorry, but I have little respect for people who take someone else's opinion as fact, almost as little as I have for someone who takes their own opinions for fact.

I addressed some of the flaws the supposed "facts" Fox gave earlier (which were conveniently ignored), and Correction with his last post nicely book-ended it. Jin claims Fox's claims are based on logic, while my whole counter argument has been that Fox has been making great leaps of faith and assumptions in logic in terms of treating the aliens in the movie as something that either is silly because they do not have the same properties as us, or because they do not have the technology that he believes anyone more advanced than us should have. There is a lot of assumption there based on an unknown species of alien - and to be honest, in that case the logical thing to do would be to meet it on its terms, not ours. It seemed that while I was able to take the aliens for what they were, Fox got all bent out of shape because the aliens were not like the ones in Independence Day.

Really, I have little more to say on the subject matter, other than what has already been said.


------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Again, what claims? The only remarks you've contributed have been vague and inflammatory. You've yet to present one real argument of your own. Arguing that my views are mere opinions not based on facts is not one of them.


-Fox

I never claimed any victory or defeat. I merely looked to state and restate my points, which seemed to be conveniently ignored by you.

To be honest, the brazen arrogance of that comment is dripping off the screen. Do you always portray yourself as the be-all, end-all, especially when you ignore the points other people make?

I have only been here a little while, but to be honest, I can't recall you making a single, non-arrogant comment. It seems to be everything you say is laced with the belief that you are right in full absolution, and everyone else who dares disagree with you is wrong, and that by merely ignoring their points and restating yours, that somehow makes you more right than them.

Just wow. If there were more people like you on this forum, I likely would have never signed up. I would not have been able to find the registration page though the mass of ego...

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Hardly the case. I have argued that the aliens being an unknown quantity, that it is stupid to say with absolute certainty what they should have or what they should be able to do, which is the stance you have taken. I have said from the beginning that we know nothing about the aliens, therefore, should and shouldn't do not come into play. You give no leeway to the unknown quantity represent, and therefore compare them based on an image of them you concocted, and then put forth as the only way it could be. If that is not taking an opinion and pushing it off as fact, then I would love to discuss what your definition of 'is' is.

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Riiight..
Nice of you to just march your way onto this message board and decide you know everything about everyone here. If you weren't such an ignorant fool, you would have never made such a comment. Just because I agree with what someone has said, that makes me a "forum groupie?" That makes sense. I guess, buy that logic, anyone who believes in the gospels must be a religious groupie. Like eating food? Must be a food eating groupie. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say something so uterlly ridiculous?



Thankyou, Jeff. I'm glad someone is using common sense in this thread.

(Whoa! I just agreed with Jeff! I must be a Jeff groupie! )

------------------
"When all else fails, eat pie."
-¬thoughts from beyond observance

[This message has been edited by Jin (edited March 04, 2004).]

I guess the only way to really go at it is to sum up all my posts, and retype the original long post I had intended for Fox before the internet ate it. It still won't matter, I know, but at least no one will be able to say anymore that I didn't try (even though I felt I aquitted myself well in my original posts in this thread):



Too bad you are using neither - you have jumped right past the hypothesis and testing, and moved directly to the conclusion. The idea of the scientific method is to observe, hypothesize, and then test to see how it goes. Seeing as we are talking about something completely fictional here, I fail to see how you could so adequately and convincingly say you are using scientific method to test anything. Again, here I just find you being smug, and implying that you were using common sense and scientific method when it is impossible to use scientific method on a fictional being and common sense is relative to the species.

In fact, here is one for you - ever consider that common sense would indicate they conserve the energy they have on their ships as best they can for the trip home, which is why they used crop circles, a very low tech but resource conserving way of navigation?

I am not saying anything I give is "right", but neither is it "wrong". It's all THEORY, which with regards to fictional characters is all we CAN do. Therefore, it is more appropriate to talk about what is possible, and what is not possible, and to also not limit the aliens to what is possible to us, nor overcredit them by assuming they should be able to do things we can't, when they have not given any evidence as such.

Herein lies my charge of you passing off your opinions as facts. You have based everything off of what you expect the aliens "should" be, in your mind. A true scientist, using the scientific method, would observe, notice the reaction to water, and then focus on testing to try to find out what it actually is, and would not find it "silly" if the test results conflicted with the initial hypothesis. As another fictional character said, "When you rule out the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true." So then, if common sense is relative to the species and their culture, and the scientific method cannot be adequately executed because the subject matter is fictional, then where does your forceful yet empty argument come from?

All I can see is ego.



You are assuming. They exhibited no such technology, and you are assuming what they would and would not have. How very unscientific of you. Observation is the first step of the scientific method you brought up. If you find fault in what you observe, then how can you claim to even be using the scientific method?

MY THEORY: One possibility is that they have a culture that relies on their own, built in mechanisms (like the mist), and to use technology in a fight is "dishonorable". Another thought is that they did not want humanity to panic until their main force had landed, because they wanted to not give the humans time to prepare. Remember, they came to abduct us, not start a war with us.



For the first part, read above. With regards to the atmosphere, it might have a moisture component, but the thing you keep passing off is that from solid to liquid to gas, elements have different properties. You fail to consider that while water in gas form may not be as toxic, water in its concentrated liquid form, with slightly different properties, could be very damaging to them. And using what portion of scientific method I can, I based that on the first rule: Observation.



For what? If we are somehow valuable to them, then why kill us and damage the potential goods? The sneak and grab makes more sense.



You fail to consider bone density here. If they have a lighter bone structure, say similar to birds, but proportionate, then it would very much be possible for them to move quick, jump high, and yet not be able to break down very solid objects because of their bone fragility. The aliens struck me as more agile than out and out strong, so that at least lends to that theory. Not to mention they entered houses through glass windows, which is considerably less solid than a wooden door or a wall.



If there is something very valuable in human physiology that they need, the rist might be worth it. Why would one army go against a bigger army, if it meant bad odds, but the reward was killing the leader? It's because the reward is worth the risk. Simple logic.



This is my biggest point in that you are passing off your own opinions as facts and logic. Never once in the movie did it say we were food for the aliens. It suggested it, among other possibilities, but nothing conclusive was ever found as to WHY the aliens abducted us. Hence, this my main proof that you are making large leaps of faith and grand assumptions in order to prove your point.



I fail to see what you are trying to get at here. Why would they need super technology to coordinate landing parties? Are you assuming (there is that word again!) that the aliens just jumped from their world to ours using the crop circles for navigation? Then you must have not thought of the idea that to get to us was a journey for them, and that the crop circles were done by a scout team while the landing party was only days away, and that the crop circles were only meant as navigation for the landing party, not for interstellar travel to Earth.

MY THEORY: It was a long trip to earth, and they had an advance party come to earth to scout weather conditions. The crop circles were going to be the areas with no precipitation (notice some of the aliens landed in urban Brazil and the middle east), that the landing party days away could head to and avoid toxic liquid water. The low tech approach was used so energy could be conserved for the trip home.



Oh, and Phil Plait is an astro-physicist? I thought he was an astronomer?

You wanted solid counter-arguments, you got them. Although, if I have you pegged correctly, you will only make a snide comment about each one without actually addressing it, and then yet again claim victory for yourself.

Go ahead, prove me wrong on that. If you do, it will be the most reasonable and logical thing you have done since this silly debate started...


------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?

Jin:


Ok, I overstepped my bounds on my comment, and I apologize. I still disagree with you, for the reasons I gave Fox in my last post, but I had no right in name calling you, especially with lack of proof in your regard.

My sincere apologies.

*bows*

------------------
--------------------------------------
Fear is here, where's the beer?