Signs vs. The Ring
01-15-03, 09:52 PM
#26
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Read Roger Ebert's review. Its very enlightening. He says and I quote "And although there is no way for everything to be explained (and many events lack any possible explanation), the movie's ending explains and explains and explains, until finally you'd rather just give it a pass than sit through one more tedious flashback. "
Roger Ebert
Ring:**
Signs:****
Roger Ebert
Ring:**
Signs:****
01-16-03, 12:52 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a sewer.
Posts: 616
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RyoHazuki7
SPOILERS:
I cant understand how people who find parts of Signs confusing praise The Ring which is one movie that has so many plot holes it hurts.
SPOILERS:
I cant understand how people who find parts of Signs confusing praise The Ring which is one movie that has so many plot holes it hurts.
Spoiler:
01-16-03, 02:09 AM
#29
Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: seattle WA
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i dont know what peopel consider plot holes
to me the problem with both the ring and signs is they strain credibility too much, even within the confines of the setting
i mean if somethings paranormal or whatever i can hang with that, i dont care who was on the phone or whatever, i dont have to have all the answers. with the ring in particular it shows and tells and tries to explain too much but not enough at the same time. true some people cant make the leap to suspension of disbelief and they ask questions based on this world the reality we know, but in my opinion a movie should be based on the reality of the movie world. take ring in comarison of ringu. they both have a somewhat slightly different take on pretty much the same material. but to me ringu which stays more simple ends up more credible. some might say its a personal bias, but i call it better filmmaking. anyways, in this genre not all the questions will always be answered and some fantastic thing happen. sometimes you just have to roll with it, but sometimes suspension of disbelief can only get you so far.
to me the problem with both the ring and signs is they strain credibility too much, even within the confines of the setting
i mean if somethings paranormal or whatever i can hang with that, i dont care who was on the phone or whatever, i dont have to have all the answers. with the ring in particular it shows and tells and tries to explain too much but not enough at the same time. true some people cant make the leap to suspension of disbelief and they ask questions based on this world the reality we know, but in my opinion a movie should be based on the reality of the movie world. take ring in comarison of ringu. they both have a somewhat slightly different take on pretty much the same material. but to me ringu which stays more simple ends up more credible. some might say its a personal bias, but i call it better filmmaking. anyways, in this genre not all the questions will always be answered and some fantastic thing happen. sometimes you just have to roll with it, but sometimes suspension of disbelief can only get you so far.
01-16-03, 07:43 AM
#30
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Im sorry. You are correct. My use of the word plot holes was incorrect. It can not be denied though that many things are left unexplained in the ring. Even if they aren't plot holes they cause you to do the same thing, doubt the story.
01-16-03, 07:58 AM
#31
Moderator
Originally posted by RyoHazuki7
It can not be denied though that many things are left unexplained in the ring.
It can not be denied though that many things are left unexplained in the ring.
01-16-03, 04:51 PM
#33
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Groucho
Personally, I prefer films that allow me to think for myself, rather than spelling everything out in big crop circles so that even the dullest audience member is shouting "ENOUGH ALREADY, I GET IT!"
Personally, I prefer films that allow me to think for myself, rather than spelling everything out in big crop circles so that even the dullest audience member is shouting "ENOUGH ALREADY, I GET IT!"
01-17-03, 12:29 PM
#34
DVD Talk Gold Edition
I havent seen the Ring but Signs is a great movie on many different levels. If you base it only on its fear factor, maybe it will not measure up but I have no doubt that it was an overall better flick. I'm really sick of hearing about the condensation angle in Signs. That is true, and makes the movie have ONE plot hole. But as far as the aliens not being able to open doors and what not isnt a plot hole. The aliens were never said to be vicious or brutal, just smart, the alien could have merely been in the dark trying to observe human life. They might have been just as scared as we were scared of them. A few aliens came first to check and see if it was safe for all of them to go.
01-17-03, 06:41 PM
#36
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Originally posted by gmal2003
I havent seen the Ring but Signs is a great movie on many different levels. If you base it only on its fear factor, maybe it will not measure up but I have no doubt that it was an overall better flick. I'm really sick of hearing about the condensation angle in Signs. That is true, and makes the movie have ONE plot hole. But as far as the aliens not being able to open doors and what not isnt a plot hole. The aliens were never said to be vicious or brutal, just smart, the alien could have merely been in the dark trying to observe human life. They might have been just as scared as we were scared of them. A few aliens came first to check and see if it was safe for all of them to go.
I havent seen the Ring but Signs is a great movie on many different levels. If you base it only on its fear factor, maybe it will not measure up but I have no doubt that it was an overall better flick. I'm really sick of hearing about the condensation angle in Signs. That is true, and makes the movie have ONE plot hole. But as far as the aliens not being able to open doors and what not isnt a plot hole. The aliens were never said to be vicious or brutal, just smart, the alien could have merely been in the dark trying to observe human life. They might have been just as scared as we were scared of them. A few aliens came first to check and see if it was safe for all of them to go.
01-23-03, 01:53 PM
#37
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks Signs is GREAT movie. It was entertaining, but not much more. It redefines the idea of plotholes. It is contrived beyond belief, with an ultimate climax that is so rediculous that it pushed me out of the moment.
People who LOVED this movie continue to point to the "twist" that involves Gibson's character losing his faith because of his wife's death, then getting it back because it turns out that his wife's death had "meaning" after all.
Puuuuhh-llleeeeeaaazzzzeee!!!
His wife's incredible prophecy basically involves Phoenix beating the alien to death with a baseball bat? That is so stupid it's not even funny. You're trying to tell me that if she hadn't said "swing away" Mel and Co. would never have thought to use a blunt object to hit the alien? Do they not have any survival skills? It didn't even have to be the bat! They could have hit it with any object they wanted, and Gibson could have been the one to do it. Shammylam tries to set it up as if only Phoenix could have wielded the bat just because he was a home-run hitter. Again, dumb.
Being a homerun hitter is not all about strength or velocity. It's about connecting perfectly with the "sweet spot" on the bat in just the right way. Plenty of strong guys could never be baseball players for this reason. Gibson could have killed the creature himself while Pheonix treated the boy. But they wanted her death to have meaning, so in the end her mystical prophecy is basically some advice that suggests that hitting the alien with an object such as a bat could injure it. Wow, who would have thought?!
We won't even go into the water thing. Sufficed to say, if NASA sponsored a manned mission to a planet that was 75% sulfuric acid and populated with creatures made of 90% sulfuric acid and then didn't give the astronauts any protective gear, you would call the NASA chiefs morons. And that's what these aliens were: morons. They can travel light-years in cloaking spaceships, but can't figure out a way to get out off a locked pantry?! Please tell me that the aliens were sending the dumbest and least-wanted of their kind on these missions.
Everything in this movie was SOOOOOOOOO obvious, because Shammylammy wanted us to see the all-powerful significance later down the road. So he beats you over the head with information. In his movies the audience knows that ANY info they get will have some meaning later. Nothing is superfluous. Little bro played baseball? Son has asthma? Daughter is picky about water? OF COURSE! It was all building up to the fact that aliens would attack the family! Duh!
Knight is smart and clever director, which is why this movie annoyed me so much. He could have done a lot better.
People who LOVED this movie continue to point to the "twist" that involves Gibson's character losing his faith because of his wife's death, then getting it back because it turns out that his wife's death had "meaning" after all.
Puuuuhh-llleeeeeaaazzzzeee!!!
His wife's incredible prophecy basically involves Phoenix beating the alien to death with a baseball bat? That is so stupid it's not even funny. You're trying to tell me that if she hadn't said "swing away" Mel and Co. would never have thought to use a blunt object to hit the alien? Do they not have any survival skills? It didn't even have to be the bat! They could have hit it with any object they wanted, and Gibson could have been the one to do it. Shammylam tries to set it up as if only Phoenix could have wielded the bat just because he was a home-run hitter. Again, dumb.
Being a homerun hitter is not all about strength or velocity. It's about connecting perfectly with the "sweet spot" on the bat in just the right way. Plenty of strong guys could never be baseball players for this reason. Gibson could have killed the creature himself while Pheonix treated the boy. But they wanted her death to have meaning, so in the end her mystical prophecy is basically some advice that suggests that hitting the alien with an object such as a bat could injure it. Wow, who would have thought?!
We won't even go into the water thing. Sufficed to say, if NASA sponsored a manned mission to a planet that was 75% sulfuric acid and populated with creatures made of 90% sulfuric acid and then didn't give the astronauts any protective gear, you would call the NASA chiefs morons. And that's what these aliens were: morons. They can travel light-years in cloaking spaceships, but can't figure out a way to get out off a locked pantry?! Please tell me that the aliens were sending the dumbest and least-wanted of their kind on these missions.
Everything in this movie was SOOOOOOOOO obvious, because Shammylammy wanted us to see the all-powerful significance later down the road. So he beats you over the head with information. In his movies the audience knows that ANY info they get will have some meaning later. Nothing is superfluous. Little bro played baseball? Son has asthma? Daughter is picky about water? OF COURSE! It was all building up to the fact that aliens would attack the family! Duh!
Knight is smart and clever director, which is why this movie annoyed me so much. He could have done a lot better.
01-23-03, 06:13 PM
#39
Banned by request
Originally posted by Tribe
His wife's incredible prophecy basically involves Phoenix beating the alien to death with a baseball bat? That is so stupid it's not even funny.
If NASA sponsored a manned mission to a planet that was 75% sulfuric acid and populated with creatures made of 90% sulfuric acid and then didn't give the astronauts any protective gear, you would call the NASA chiefs morons. And that's what these aliens were: morons. They can travel light-years in cloaking spaceships, but can't figure out a way to get out off a locked pantry?! Please tell me that the aliens were sending the dumbest and least-wanted of their kind on these missions.
His wife's incredible prophecy basically involves Phoenix beating the alien to death with a baseball bat? That is so stupid it's not even funny.
If NASA sponsored a manned mission to a planet that was 75% sulfuric acid and populated with creatures made of 90% sulfuric acid and then didn't give the astronauts any protective gear, you would call the NASA chiefs morons. And that's what these aliens were: morons. They can travel light-years in cloaking spaceships, but can't figure out a way to get out off a locked pantry?! Please tell me that the aliens were sending the dumbest and least-wanted of their kind on these missions.
That's classic, and you make several good points.
01-23-03, 09:06 PM
#40
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Originally posted by Tribe
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks Signs is GREAT movie. It was entertaining, but not much more. It redefines the idea of plotholes. It is contrived beyond belief, with an ultimate climax that is so rediculous that it pushed me out of the moment.
People who LOVED this movie continue to point to the "twist" that involves Gibson's character losing his faith because of his wife's death, then getting it back because it turns out that his wife's death had "meaning" after all.
Puuuuhh-llleeeeeaaazzzzeee!!!
His wife's incredible prophecy basically involves Phoenix beating the alien to death with a baseball bat? That is so stupid it's not even funny. You're trying to tell me that if she hadn't said "swing away" Mel and Co. would never have thought to use a blunt object to hit the alien? Do they not have any survival skills? It didn't even have to be the bat! They could have hit it with any object they wanted, and Gibson could have been the one to do it. Shammylam tries to set it up as if only Phoenix could have wielded the bat just because he was a home-run hitter. Again, dumb.
Being a homerun hitter is not all about strength or velocity. It's about connecting perfectly with the "sweet spot" on the bat in just the right way. Plenty of strong guys could never be baseball players for this reason. Gibson could have killed the creature himself while Pheonix treated the boy. But they wanted her death to have meaning, so in the end her mystical prophecy is basically some advice that suggests that hitting the alien with an object such as a bat could injure it. Wow, who would have thought?!
We won't even go into the water thing. Sufficed to say, if NASA sponsored a manned mission to a planet that was 75% sulfuric acid and populated with creatures made of 90% sulfuric acid and then didn't give the astronauts any protective gear, you would call the NASA chiefs morons. And that's what these aliens were: morons. They can travel light-years in cloaking spaceships, but can't figure out a way to get out off a locked pantry?! Please tell me that the aliens were sending the dumbest and least-wanted of their kind on these missions.
Everything in this movie was SOOOOOOOOO obvious, because Shammylammy wanted us to see the all-powerful significance later down the road. So he beats you over the head with information. In his movies the audience knows that ANY info they get will have some meaning later. Nothing is superfluous. Little bro played baseball? Son has asthma? Daughter is picky about water? OF COURSE! It was all building up to the fact that aliens would attack the family! Duh!
Knight is smart and clever director, which is why this movie annoyed me so much. He could have done a lot better.
I feel sorry for anyone who thinks Signs is GREAT movie. It was entertaining, but not much more. It redefines the idea of plotholes. It is contrived beyond belief, with an ultimate climax that is so rediculous that it pushed me out of the moment.
People who LOVED this movie continue to point to the "twist" that involves Gibson's character losing his faith because of his wife's death, then getting it back because it turns out that his wife's death had "meaning" after all.
Puuuuhh-llleeeeeaaazzzzeee!!!
His wife's incredible prophecy basically involves Phoenix beating the alien to death with a baseball bat? That is so stupid it's not even funny. You're trying to tell me that if she hadn't said "swing away" Mel and Co. would never have thought to use a blunt object to hit the alien? Do they not have any survival skills? It didn't even have to be the bat! They could have hit it with any object they wanted, and Gibson could have been the one to do it. Shammylam tries to set it up as if only Phoenix could have wielded the bat just because he was a home-run hitter. Again, dumb.
Being a homerun hitter is not all about strength or velocity. It's about connecting perfectly with the "sweet spot" on the bat in just the right way. Plenty of strong guys could never be baseball players for this reason. Gibson could have killed the creature himself while Pheonix treated the boy. But they wanted her death to have meaning, so in the end her mystical prophecy is basically some advice that suggests that hitting the alien with an object such as a bat could injure it. Wow, who would have thought?!
We won't even go into the water thing. Sufficed to say, if NASA sponsored a manned mission to a planet that was 75% sulfuric acid and populated with creatures made of 90% sulfuric acid and then didn't give the astronauts any protective gear, you would call the NASA chiefs morons. And that's what these aliens were: morons. They can travel light-years in cloaking spaceships, but can't figure out a way to get out off a locked pantry?! Please tell me that the aliens were sending the dumbest and least-wanted of their kind on these missions.
Everything in this movie was SOOOOOOOOO obvious, because Shammylammy wanted us to see the all-powerful significance later down the road. So he beats you over the head with information. In his movies the audience knows that ANY info they get will have some meaning later. Nothing is superfluous. Little bro played baseball? Son has asthma? Daughter is picky about water? OF COURSE! It was all building up to the fact that aliens would attack the family! Duh!
Knight is smart and clever director, which is why this movie annoyed me so much. He could have done a lot better.
Ok for the whole survival skills thing, if you go camping and a bear comes near your camp do you run at it with a bat or try to stay away from it. Unless you were dropped as a child you don't try to attack something that you don't know much aboot. Mel didn't know how to hurt it so he had FAITH (the key theme, remember) and told him to swing away. For all he knew a bat could have turned into jello when it touched him, thats where faith comes in. Also if you remember, the bat didn't kill him or even injur him, the water did him in.
The only water plothole was the aliens in the cornfield. How do you know these aliens were some representatives of the planet they were from? If they are advanced that means they could have the ability to space travel availible to the general public. What if they went there by accident? What if there ship was damaged? What if they were looking for some cheap thrills? In Death Valley its really freaking hot right? Too hot to survive in for too long. Why do some people drive there? Why do some people go to Antartica where its below freezing and they need special equipment to stay alive? People or aliens don't have to stay in there suburban comfort zones.
I agree with you aboot one thing. The foreshadowing. Every time I rent a movie and a kid has asthma I throw it oot the window because I know aliens are just around the corner. Ripley had asthma didn't she?
01-23-03, 09:15 PM
#41
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
Just saw this in another Signs thread. I think cortan said it (sorry i dont know how to quote in other threads except for the old copy & paste)
Every single post that complains about the logic in this movie someone always says how stupid it is that water is the aliens weakness. I agree that that would be pretty dumb.
I am suprised no one else has ever mentioned this, but I don't think the water is actually what hurts them.
Throughout the movie Bo complains about the taste of the water. She says its contaminated, that it tastes funny. Ofcourse her family just thinks its a nervous tick, but I have always believed that she actually had really sensitive taste buds and really did sense something chemical or unnatural in the water supply. This theory would make alot more sense than the idea that just pure water hurts them.
So that is my take on it, that something in the water rather than the water itself is what actually hurts them.
What do you think?
Every single post that complains about the logic in this movie someone always says how stupid it is that water is the aliens weakness. I agree that that would be pretty dumb.
I am suprised no one else has ever mentioned this, but I don't think the water is actually what hurts them.
Throughout the movie Bo complains about the taste of the water. She says its contaminated, that it tastes funny. Ofcourse her family just thinks its a nervous tick, but I have always believed that she actually had really sensitive taste buds and really did sense something chemical or unnatural in the water supply. This theory would make alot more sense than the idea that just pure water hurts them.
So that is my take on it, that something in the water rather than the water itself is what actually hurts them.
What do you think?
01-23-03, 10:08 PM
#42
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Ok, let's say it's "something in the water". Doesn't make sense either. Why? It was "reported" that some other people in other parts of the world already figured out how to beat the aliens. Don't tell me the chemical contents of the water in Mel's town matched those from the other countries exactly, or enough so that they can beat the aliens? Don't buy it. Sorry.
01-23-03, 10:10 PM
#43
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't let "movie Logic" bother me to much... i can take some things for granted and go with the story if need be......
That said, as far as movies go, SIGNS was in my top 5 of 2002. Not only was it entertaining and thrilling but it was extremely moving and well crafted. M. Night knocked it out of the park.
The Ring just missed my top 10. It was by far one of the coolest movies I saw all year, and it had great performances and was also well crafted, but it just didn't dazzle me as much as SIGNS... but for pure entertainment value, THE RING sure delivers... I've seen it a few times and like it more and more each time. I think it was with THE RING that Gore Verbinski finally hit his stride and I am very excited to see his next film (Pirates...)... both were really good movies and I think debating over which one is better is kind of pointless.... both are worth your time and worth owning...
MATT
That said, as far as movies go, SIGNS was in my top 5 of 2002. Not only was it entertaining and thrilling but it was extremely moving and well crafted. M. Night knocked it out of the park.
The Ring just missed my top 10. It was by far one of the coolest movies I saw all year, and it had great performances and was also well crafted, but it just didn't dazzle me as much as SIGNS... but for pure entertainment value, THE RING sure delivers... I've seen it a few times and like it more and more each time. I think it was with THE RING that Gore Verbinski finally hit his stride and I am very excited to see his next film (Pirates...)... both were really good movies and I think debating over which one is better is kind of pointless.... both are worth your time and worth owning...
MATT
Last edited by mdc3000; 01-24-03 at 08:00 AM.
01-23-03, 10:12 PM
#44
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Guelph, Ontario
Posts: 9,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Kal Jedi
Ok, let's say it's "something in the water". Doesn't make sense either. Why? It was "reported" that some other people in other parts of the world already figured out how to beat the aliens. Don't tell me the chemical contents of the water in Mel's town matched those from the other countries exactly, or enough so that they can beat the aliens? Don't buy it. Sorry.
Ok, let's say it's "something in the water". Doesn't make sense either. Why? It was "reported" that some other people in other parts of the world already figured out how to beat the aliens. Don't tell me the chemical contents of the water in Mel's town matched those from the other countries exactly, or enough so that they can beat the aliens? Don't buy it. Sorry.
MATT
01-24-03, 12:35 AM
#45
Banned by request
Originally posted by RyoHazuki7
I am suprised no one else has ever mentioned this, but I don't think the water is actually what hurts them.
Throughout the movie Bo complains about the taste of the water. She says its contaminated, that it tastes funny. Ofcourse her family just thinks its a nervous tick, but I have always believed that she actually had really sensitive taste buds and really did sense something chemical or unnatural in the water supply. This theory would make alot more sense than the idea that just pure water hurts them.
So that is my take on it, that something in the water rather than the water itself is what actually hurts them.
What do you think?
I am suprised no one else has ever mentioned this, but I don't think the water is actually what hurts them.
Throughout the movie Bo complains about the taste of the water. She says its contaminated, that it tastes funny. Ofcourse her family just thinks its a nervous tick, but I have always believed that she actually had really sensitive taste buds and really did sense something chemical or unnatural in the water supply. This theory would make alot more sense than the idea that just pure water hurts them.
So that is my take on it, that something in the water rather than the water itself is what actually hurts them.
What do you think?
My big question is, why didn't she ever drink juice? Or was that explained in the movie but I just forgot? Or is it just because if she drank juice, the ending wouldn't have worked?
