Talk:Signs (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Contents 1 Structure 2 Criticisms 3 Hidden messages 4 Signs 2 5 Trivia: The Kids Births 6 Obscure reason why water kills the aliens...

[edit] Structure

NPOV: The last part of this section is extremely biased, and reads like opinion, particularly: "The last five minutes are exuberantly thrilling".

[edit] Criticisms

I deleted a large chunk of the "Criticisms" section, because it looked like a debate, not actual criticisms, and was mostly filled with defences against the criticism(s). "People criticize this," "Others counter with this," "Which is countered with this," is fine to do, just not in the article. Capitan Obvio 08:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a brief paragraph describing another theory in the criticisms section which I've heard. I feel that it may be too strongly biased against those who hold the theory, but I'm coming up blank on other ways to word it. I actually think it's a fairly nice idea, even if there is no supporting evidence from the film. (I also realize now that I wasn't signed in at the time of editing. Oops.) Anjldust 06:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

This section fails to mention what is hinted at in the movie, the aliens weren't there for the planet, only the people to be used as slaves or whatever so their weakness to water isn't really a factor, just an obstacle. NeoRicen 08:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this theory?  -- Run!  08:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

After the night locked in the basement, they awake and have a radio working. Merrill explains that the radio said they "weren't there for the planet" but just to "harvest". This could mean harvesting supplies, harvesting humans for food, or taking slaves. Since the aliens seemed to be portrayed as a direct threat to humans and "a lot of people died" one would think the harvesting supplies option unlikely. Harvesting humans for food seems unlikely due to the extremely different psysiology of the aliens, which would probably not be able to digest human tissue. Slave labor seems the most likely to me. This would be yet another reason that technology wouldn't be used (they don't want to kill ALL of them at least, and they don't want to have it fall into human hands so humans don't get any tech for their next visit in who-knows-how-long). Bizarre cultural or psychological reasons are also good (and a great part of the mystique of the aliens is not being able to figure out why they do what they do IMO).

--Daniel 00:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden messages

I removed the "hidden message" section as I watched the movie yesterday to find it. The "holes" "punctured in the house" were actually from the roof of a swing set. I would guess that the character used this roof as one of the boards to seal up the house, not that the aliens were "spying" on them early on in the film. I think it was just one person's opinion, and this person even said: "This has never been mentioned or explained." which is another way of saying that he/she has no reference to back this theory up.

Makes sense to me. --Delf 22:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signs 2

I'm not sure that Signs 2 is going to be a real movie. I found nothing about it on IMDB or anywhere on the internet other that Wikipedia. --LCpl 16:55, 2 June 2006 (EST)

[edit] Trivia: The Kids Births

I seem to recall reading or hearing somewhere that the stories Graham tells Morgan and Bo about their births were about the births of Night's own children. Fact or fiction? Morhange 06:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure reason why water kills the aliens...

Okay, this is original reserch, not documented, but I think there is a very good reason why water wasn't dangerous to the aliens at first, then became deadly. The movie was about regaining faith... in god or life or whatever. The family was tainted by the mother's death. The aliens left the planet shortly after everybody on Earth began to pray to their gods. In the Catholic Church, water is used to hold the blessings of God (Holy Water).

I say (and maybe I am wrong) God saw fit to bless all the water on the planet when he saw every person turn to him, making the water burn evil. Faith saved everybody except the father, until the last alien rekindled his faith, making the water in his house deadly, too. 68.48.174.136 04:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the water ever being non-harmful to the aliens...the only time an alien touched water, he died. I think it's just because their bodies aren't chemically made to withstand water. ~ Butros (Talk) 07:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't understand how water can be deadly, it has a neutral pH. I guess the aliens must not be carbon based lifeforms, I don't think M. Night Shamalan thought much about that though lol

first, water was always harmful to them. remember when M.Night's character said that he was heading down to the lake cause the creatures don't seem to like water? second, how does their not being carbon biased mean that M.Night didn't think about it much? and third, WHY CAN"T I FIND A COMPLAINT ABOUT HOLLYWOOD CREATING SUCH A BLAINTENTLY PRO-JESUS FILM?!?!?!?!?! o, and fourth, if they wanted us for slaves they wouldn't have killed everyone that the took.J.L.Main 02:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)