|
Post by szaleniec on Apr 18, 2009 22:48:17 GMT -5
I think the real problem here is not that it is impossible that a life form would evolve independant of and intollerant of liquid water. The real chestnut here is that such a race would be physiologically capable of assimilating human beings as a food source. There is simply no way such radically different biologies would be chemically compatible. For all plausible anhydrous biochemistries I'm aware of, the temperature of Earth would kill them long before the water had a chance to, within seconds or minutes of getting off the ship without protection. Well, I couldn't swear that it's not highly common. I just believe that hydrogen and oxygen are more likely to bond to other stuff than each other. If anybody has evidence one way or the other I'd love to know the facts on this. As I understand there's plenty of surplus oxygen once it's bound to everything else it wants to. Nucleosynthesis in stars favours it because it has a stable configuration of protons and neutrons, eight of each for the most common isotope 16O, so a lot gets formed. As for hydrogen, it really likes oxygen in preference to just about anything else.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 18, 2009 23:30:41 GMT -5
I'll stick with the bad writing solution.
I also think that if the vehicle to get a message across is bad, it's really unfair to say "just look at the message." I mean, if I was supposed to just look at the message, maybe they should have just said "have faith" and save me eight bucks and them a load of ridicule.
Hell, Serenity could be said to have a similar message, but doesn't spend time proseltysing or illustrate it through a ridiculous series of contrived events.
But I digress.
The movie features a series of character "flaws" which should all be ignored for their greater purpose in preventing the domination of a foe who has no purpose in being there. Having faith tha God will cap someone you love just to tell you those flaws are part of the greater design makes little sense, and makes God a terrible douchebag. Not to mention, his faith would have never been lost had he not lost his wife in the first place...So isn't it kind of zero sum?
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Apr 19, 2009 5:14:13 GMT -5
I'm with the stupid aliens theory. If you go through all the trouble to get here, but you don't bother to scout ahead and notice that the planet is covered with the one substance that can turn your gorphplasts into claymonoxes, then you deserve what you get.
It reminds me of Charlie Sheen's line from Scary Movie 3:
"They've mastered faster-than-light travel, but they can't get past a simple door?"
|
|
Zabimaru
Full Member
Always amused and bemused
Posts: 241
|
Post by Zabimaru on Apr 19, 2009 6:40:41 GMT -5
"They've mastered faster-than-light travel, but they can't get past a simple door?" Yes, that was another of the really stupid parts. The advanced space aliens can't open a wooden door - that's weird. But furthermore, it's never clear why they would even want to get through the door in the first place. I never understood why they spend what is apparently days stalking out a tiny little farm and making feeble attempts to mess with the family living there. Sure, they may have some strange, alien reasons that we can't understand because we don't know their culture. But it still gives you the feeling of not making any sense, so I'd really call it bad writing.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 19, 2009 14:28:29 GMT -5
I can SOMEWHAT buy the aliens' aversion to water; maybe only liquid water has the damaging effect on them. We only see them deliberately going near liquid water at the end, in the house, though I agree they should have had some protective equipment.
As for why they bother with the family so much...maybe they're harvesting humans with specific genes found in a relatively small population of the planet? *shrug*
I agree that the movie in itself really doesn't make a great case for "faith" or even for its existence. The problem was that, except for the wife's death scene, it made a complete left turn in the last half hour or so, going from a sci fi-horror to a takeoff of "Touched by an Angel". If they'd stuck with the original premise they presented, I could still enjoy it, even if only in an "entertainingly bad" way. As it is, the whole thing just feels too disjointed, illogical and slapped-together to even warrant that much distinction.
|
|
|
Post by David D.G. on Apr 22, 2009 12:56:08 GMT -5
I thought it was a truly execrable movie. I'm glad to see that so many people here agree.
~David D.G.
|
|
Panthera
Full Member
Here kitty kitty...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Panthera on Apr 22, 2009 17:31:41 GMT -5
"They've mastered faster-than-light travel, but they can't get past a simple door?" Yes, that was another of the really stupid parts. The advanced space aliens can't open a wooden door - that's weird. But furthermore, it's never clear why they would even want to get through the door in the first place. I never understood why they spend what is apparently days stalking out a tiny little farm and making feeble attempts to mess with the family living there. Sure, they may have some strange, alien reasons that we can't understand because we don't know their culture. But it still gives you the feeling of not making any sense, so I'd really call it bad writing. [tongue-in-cheek mode] Obviously, they were just stupid, joyriding teenagers out terrorizing the neighborhood *sage nod* No complex explanation required! [/tongue-in-cheek mode] As for the door thing, you could probably handwave it away by pointing out that, in a sufficiently advanced society, doors probably open automatically and "doorknobs" haven't existed for centuries. They would be as baffled by such primitive technology as a cell-phone addict would be if asked to communicate through smoke signals.
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Apr 22, 2009 19:04:59 GMT -5
As for the door thing, you could probably handwave it away by pointing out that, in a sufficiently advanced society, doors probably open automatically and "doorknobs" haven't existed for centuries. They would be as baffled by such primitive technology as a cell-phone addict would be if asked to communicate through smoke signals. That's a joke that pops up every once in awhile when some crew from Star Trek ends up in the dark ages of the 20th century. And I think Scotty had that problem with a computer mouse in Star Trek IV. The difference is you can bash your way through a door - and that would've made an awesome scene - but not into successfully sending smoke signals - which would also make an awesome but incoherent scene.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Obvious on Apr 23, 2009 12:45:13 GMT -5
The issue I have with that is that you see them walking all about a cornfield at night, without wearing any kind of suit. Then you expect me to believe water kills them? Seriously. So water vapor in the air doesn't hurt them, dew on the ground doesn't hurt them, but water on their skin hurts them? What I never understood is why the aliens would decide to come to a planet that is 70% the thing that kills them. It doesn't seem like the brightest thing to do. That would be like Humans trying to invade a planet covered in Acid, with clouds made of Acid. And then we try to kidnap aliens who are made just giant blobs of acid.
|
|
|
Post by rebelliousscot on Apr 23, 2009 13:07:36 GMT -5
Can we just get it over and done with and say it basically was half-baked version of Day of the Triffids?
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 23, 2009 13:12:15 GMT -5
That's an insult to the Triffids.
It was a RAW version of "Day of the Triffids". That steak still had a bell.
|
|
|
Post by rebelliousscot on Apr 23, 2009 13:18:21 GMT -5
That's an insult to the Triffids. It was a RAW version of "Day of the Triffids". That steak still had a bell. Okay Raw, point is it was blatantly ripped the plot of it. Plus it sucky movie. So not really worth speaking about.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 23, 2009 13:21:10 GMT -5
We speak of sucky movies for one reason and one reason only:
To laugh at the idiocy that spawned them and permeates them.
|
|
|
Post by rebelliousscot on Apr 23, 2009 13:22:00 GMT -5
We speak of sucky movies for one reason and one reason only: To laugh at the idiocy that spawned them and permeates them. Well Cloverfield was a worse movie, wish more people would rip that.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 23, 2009 13:47:48 GMT -5
Hey, now...I LOVE Cloverfield. No, the monster isn't at all realistic, but it provides a dirt-level view of how real people would likely react in such situations, whereas in movies like "Godzilla", they just move back in, rebuild Tokyo and are still living there even after it's destroyed ten times.
|
|