|
Warning: Contains spoilers. I recently saw "Signs". There were some good points to the film, but I also had the same reaction that Rachel Lucas had: Where are the guns? I mean, I understand that Mel Gibson's character might not have had a gun -- but it seemed like it didn't occur to anyone to fight the aliens with guns. It isn't that I wanted to see any guns in the movie -- its just that their omission seemed unrealistic. And furthermore, I couldn't understand why the aliens didn't have some kind of weapondry -- you'd think something that could cross the galaxy for conquest would have invented some kind of velocity or energy weapon?!?!?! Regarding believability, I think that's worthy of a separate post. Concerning the aliens non-armament, I understood that the deterrant against nuclear warfare was the fact that they were interspersed with the population. Giving them a few good zap guns would have helped their odds while not changing this. Posted by: Tim on January 12, 2003 05:13 PM Add your two cents...
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once. |
I saw 'Signs' recently, and didn't really even think about the absence of guns. I mean, I guess it's one of those things where the premise of the movie isn't 'realistic,' so why should the reactions be? I think it would have taken something away from the movie, surprisingly. They (sort of) explained why the aliens weren't using weapons -- the book they were reading claimed that the aliens would come via hand to hand combat to prevent the use of nuclear weapons by the earthlings.
Posted by: Harry on January 12, 2003 03:28 PM