(Forgot to add this to my last message)
The watchtower scene seems perfectly acceptable to me. The kid was scared and acted illogically. I’m not even convinced that he did act illogically, come to think of it. The creatures were roughly humanoid, and they were something to be feared, but there’s no indication that they had super jumping abilities. More likely, they would have just used the ladder, and thus the kid was pulling away from the creature’s most likely route.
Sinc you insist on maintaining this insulting tone, I’m done with this.
But they didn’t go into the woods…or the shed.
I might be swayed by your arguement if the game were to go as far into the woods as possible before getting scared.
One thing that nobody brought up was that the sound effects that were made by the elders always came at the right time (think about the lunch they were having in the beginning). Did they always have somebody on call for sound effects?
And didn’t anyone notice that every time anything relating to the monsters (for lack of a better word) happened, that at least one of the elders was missing? Like Clark Kent not being around every time Superman is…
Maybe I didn’t like the movie! 
If you believe that was an insulting tone, then I suggest you report the post to the mods. I have yet to make a post in this thread that insults anyone, nor made one that attempts to insult anyone. I have merely pointed out where some of your arguments, and not you, lack merit. If you don’t like being proved wrong, then this message board may not be for you.
There is no being proved wrong in a matter of opinion.
But unless you can continue the discussion without the sarcasm, if that’s a better word for you, then you can continue it on your own.
There is no being proved wrong in a matter of opinion. Every single point I–and many, many others; not just in this thread–have made can be argued down to the finest point of opinion. But the fact that there are so very many points that require that kind of justification is what we’re criticizing.
But unless you can continue the discussion without the sarcasm, if that’s a better word for you, then you can continue it on your own.
This makes no sense to me. I’m not talking about the mechanics of the dare–“We only do dares that involve going into something”–but the fact that, like teenagers everywhere who dare each other to bend or break the rules, a shed called The Shed We Do Not Use might as well be called The Shed I Dare You to Peek Into.
So why are you holding out on us, what are these points you speak of? Because so far, all you’ve raised are niggling little nitpicks that most everyone in this thread has dismissed out of hand. If your points cannot withstand the slightest of criticism, why do you hold on to them so dearly?
Thanks mom. Can I await your approval to respond and post elsewhere, or should I e-mail Lynn to see if my posting priviledges have somehow been withheld by you?
For 32 minutes.
-Joe
[Moderator whip] CRACK! CRACK! CRACK! [/whip]
Listen very carefully, both of you… and I’m deliberately lecturing for the good of all. You’ve both been around long enough to know better.
This is the Cafe Society forum. The purpose of discussion in this forum is limited to the arts and entertainment, and a few related areas like sports and cuisine.
First, political snide remarks are, generally speaking, inappropriate here. I’ll qualify that slightly: a really funny political joke ref to the arts might – MIGHT – be OK. And a discussion about government funded arts might be OK. But lissener’s remark was uncalled for and inappropriate and not even funny. Lissener has apologized, and I further assign two hours of charitable work in further atonement.
Second, personal insults are NOT allowed in this forum, and I can’t think of any qualifications or exceptions. Period. We’re discussing the arts, and there are different tastes – different works grab or bore different people. There’s no “right” or “wrong” when it comes to taste or to suspension of disbelief. We accept that and acknowledge it, and we do NOT insult others for having different taste. Lissener, you started the personal insults, and as I read this (quickly), you remain the prime instigator, so I’m whomping you on the head with a plate of spaghetti. Cut it out, damn it.
Munch, you’re skating closer to the edge in response than I’d like – better response is to email a Moderator or “REPORT THIS POST.” I grant you, we’re not on 24/7, it took a litttle while. But when you’re faced with name-calling, the best policy is usually to report the thread and go away for a couple hours, rather than get more heated.
So, both of you: if you want to post in this thread, get back on track and STAY on track.
I rather liked the film, not many movies these days take the time for character development. There were some decent acting performances and the script had two disabled people, one of which, un-PC like, was actually not the most noble person in the village. But the costume for Those We Do Not Speak Of ROCKED! I think that will be a great Halloween costume!
I thought they looked pretty awesome, too. Those long-ass claws were wicked.
I really enjoyed the movie. Because it’s one of THOSE movies, of course, I’ll never be able to enjoy it the same way again.
I thought the guy, when terrified, backing away from the ladder made SENSE, personally. The next most sensible thing being to just stand on the trap door, but that’s putting logical thinking into a terror situation.
Besides, it says something when the jumpiest part of the movie is a flash of red passing twenty feet away.
That, and the scene with Blind Girl (who knew Ron Howard could have such a cute kid? She looks like a younger version if Christina Hendricks) holding out her hand was shot almost perfectly. If Joe Moviegoer notices the cinematography, that says something.
Of the three pliots (The Monsters, The Time, and The Skinner), my girlfriend figured out two, I figured out two, and the one we had in common was The Skinner.
Anyways, I really liked it. I also thought it was very obviously that MNS’s character WAS in on it - obviously too young to be a founder, but I think its part of his job to be in on it.
-Joe
My point is that going in the woods would have broken the rules. Standing on the stump does not. Going in the shed would break the rules…
Upon further reflection, I’m willing to concede that the perimeter of the woods was not a chain link fence, but very well could have been brick. However, Ivy was following a gravel road to the outside, and it logically follows that the community was originally built, the clearing cleared, by mechanical vehicles and such. At least, the presence of a gravel road would logically suggest that.
Roads that go through walls tend to be accompanied by gates. Most gates I’ve seen are chain link, regardless of the surrounding fence material. I don’t think that’s a stretch of the imagination, by any sense of the word.
CK - thanks for the redirection. I’ll watch it.