Talk:Signs (film)

Structure

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

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)

Encyclopedias shouldn't analyze to this depth, just report. --Banime (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Structure" and speculative statements

The whole section "Structure" is a non standard Wikipedia:WikiProject Films section. It is redundent (just repeats stuff in the plot summery) and it is full of interpretation of the original film. I have removed most of the major original or non-cited statements. The whole section seems to be tipping towards the "Original Research Event Horizon" (something like the "Spam Event Horizon", if there is such a thing} Removed that last paragraph, the first sentence makes an unsupported statement, and the rest is speculation as to what conditions the aliens would react to. I notice from the talk above that this "waterphobic aliens" used to be a big part in this article under "Criticism". The author should consider re-adding a section like that if he/she wants to add a critical statement ("Criticism" is a valid heading under Wikipedia:WikiProject Films). 69.72.2.72 00:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. I came to read this article to see what other people interpreted of the movie. At least I still have the talk page. 130.39.63.231 13:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You also have the History[1]. External links at the bottom of the article will lead you to what the critics thought. If you are looking for what other fans thought then you are reading the wrong website, this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. 69.72.2.72 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the section "Structure" to talk below. This is an interpretation of the movie, whose is it? The section has no Attribution which makes it Original Thought. As I noted above it is also a redundant plot description. 69.72.2.71 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

==Structure==

The story is presented chronologically except for the scenes detailing the death of Graham's wife. There are several of these flashbacks, sometimes repeating the same footage, but progressively revealing more details. The film's dramatic structure resembles others of its genre (especially Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds) but with some surprises, notably its exploration of the deeper psychological and religious aspects of human-felt terror. One of the first images we see is a cross-shaped "clean spot" on the wall of Graham's bedroom. We infer that the cross was removed when the death of Graham's wife precipitated his crisis of faith, yet its image remains. People can't stop calling him "Father", though he asks them not to, and a girl in town insists he hear her confession. Most poignantly, throughout the building terror, Graham's family looks to him for pastoral reassurance, which he can't (or won't) provide.

The suspense builds slowly at first, though not without foreboding (early on, Houdini, one of the Hess' family dogs, is skewered with a barbecue fork). Graham insists the family go about its business normally, but the children quickly size up the impending alien invasion, finally confirmed by worldwide television coverage. A pivotal dramatic moment is the late-night whispered exchange between Graham and Merrill, in which each stakes out his philosophical position on the impending tragedy.

The twist at the end of Signs is a little different from Shyamalan's other films, like The Sixth Sense. In those films, some important fact is withheld from the audience until the end; in Signs, it is the meaning of the facts that is revealed. As the family battles the now-visible enemy, the disconnected details of the story (Morgan's asthma, Bo's placing of multiple cups of water around the house, Colleen's apparently nonsensical last words) all come to rapid-fire convergence with Graham's understanding of the "signs".

Thus the title itself is a double entendre referring to the crop signs made by the aliens, and the revelations Graham had.

---

Spoiler Warning

Hey I noticed that the spoiler warning here is in the plot. After looking at Wikipedia: Spoiler_warning and Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#plot I'm going to remove it from that section. If you have any objections reply below or let me know on my talk page. Thanks! Jussen 22:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The header length is too dang high

Why is the header so long? Other Shyamalan movies have much shorter ones, the kind you usually see on Wikipedia. Only important films like Star Wars Episode IV and The Birth of a Nation need headers of this length. --Serpinium (talk) 05:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)