MovieChat Forums > Signs (2002) Discussion > No reaction to hearing their dog... (Spo...

No reaction to hearing their dog... (Spoilers)

posted 8 years ago by theresalight
18 replies | jump to latest

...getting killed? When the aliens are closing in, they can hear Isabelle barking outside. Then we hear her whimpering as she is obviously being killed. They all just stand there, completely calm and expressionless as they listen. They didn't even seem shocked until they heard the alien moving in closer afterwards. I get that they are scared, but I'd be freaking out if I knew my dog was being killed right outside. Actually, I probably would have made sure to bring her inside in the first place.

Anyway, that part bothered me.

[–] Quentin36 8 years ago

While I agree hearing your dog getting killed would be upsetting, at that point they were more worried about themselves being killed

[–] Jeannette_Mary 8 years ago

I agree with you but as Quentin36 said they are in survival mode at that moment. They know it happened but once things calm down reality will hit hard and they will feel it then.

"Sometimes life hands you lemons that are worth 2 in the bush, I like kittens."

[–] TheManInOil 8 years ago

Given that they got over the first one dying (not only that, but having to kill it in self-defense) in about 5 minutes, it's not surprising.

[–] rex (2848) 2 years ago

there was an embrace & panic on their faces

[–] acidraindrop (3055) 2 years ago

Thank god there was as minimal reaction.

[–] Gd5150 (11237) 2 years ago

Agreed. Sacrifice the kid and save the dag.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

dogs have a habit of dying in horror movies.

[–] PaladinNJ (20465) a year ago

Old Hollywood trick. If someone kills a dog, they must be the bad guy.

[–] BKB (6793) 2 months ago

Hell, just the idea that aliens who are supposedly so smart would travel to a planet comprised of 71% water, the one thing they're afraid of to begin with?? 🤔

[–] Breeze (113) a month ago

I'm bored enough to respond to this, and the complaint is pervasive enough. Simply:

Space is VAST. Like really, Really, REALLY big. Like, there's a mind-bendingly huge number of stars out there.

Now, consider the fact that each star has at least one planet, and in most cases (probably) several. SO: multiply that previous already huge number by a factor of (X).

In that ridiculously large universe of planets, do you know how many signs of intelligent life we've found? [Hint: NONE.]

Conclusion: even if an alien civilization COULD achieve space travel w/significant reach, the odds of encountering intelligent life would be Vanishingly Small.

More to the point conclusion: Once they DID find what they were looking for, the presence of water would NOT be a deterrent.

See how that works? Okay.

[–] DarthAckbar (1122) a month ago

agreed it's a stupid complaint

[–] BeaSouth (2878) a month ago

Still, the life form they found was also made up of water and could merely spit on them or throw a dixie cup of urine to cause fatal injury. The story might have at least explained why the aliens took such a mortal risk without any apparent preparation considering the vulnerability. The images we saw of the aliens and this weakness were akin to landing astronauts on Mars in their swim trunks

[–] Breeze (113) 25 days ago

Dunno how to better explain it. If you wanted/needed a sentient race, for [X] reason, and (do the math:) you could search Just Our Galaxy for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS and not find any, your objections make No Sense. Period.

You could as usefully say: why do human beings explore dangerous jungles? Or arctic tundra? Or unforgiving deserts? Or ocean depths that could crush you? Or eat fugu? Etc, etc, etc. . .

[–] BeaSouth (2878) 25 days ago

I absolutely accept your point in that regard Breeze. I’m not objecting to it at all. But again, we don’t explore dangerous jungles or the deepest oceans unprepared or send astronauts to Mars in swimsuits. But that’s essentially what we saw of the aliens in Signs. They had made no apparent preparations for the Earth environment. That’s the part I still felt was silly about the movie.

[–] Breeze (113) 25 days ago

Okay, try this:
1) They're ALIEN. You're attempting to layer Human perceptions/motivations on them.
2) What makes you think they're "unprepared?"
3) We ABSOLUTELY do explore danger w/o regard for personal safety. Or, with what *some* would consider reckless disregard. I would personally NEVER eat fugu; many do. See how that works?
4) They're Alien. We have no idea what their situation/preparation/capabilities are.

It's a silly objection. Really.

[–] BeaSouth (2878) 23 days ago

(1) You’re the one who keeps giving examples of risky human activities to explain the illogical carelessness of the extraterrestrials. And it’s not an exclusively human motivation to protect oneself. We saw an alien demonstrate the instinct when it recoiled from having fingers amputated with a knife.
(2) I saw it on screen.
(3) We’re not talking about some foolish person eating an exotic fish. The movie is about a life form so intelligent, they had mastered interstellar (if not intergalactic) travel in a spaceship capable of delivering them safely en masse to another planet. Humans are at best capable of landing on a nearby planet and even we have figured out the obvious need to cover our astronauts with a life supporting protective suit for the deadly conditions upon arrival. See how a more accurate analogy works?
(4) We know from the movie they could safely travel in sophisticated spacecraft between solar systems (if not galaxies) with calculated objectives for exploiting the resident intelligent life form who violently resisted. We know the aliens felt pain and engaged in self preservation. It makes no sense they did not prepare for the mortal risk of a simple and abundant chemical compound of one oxygen and two hydrogen molecules.

[–] Breeze (113) 23 days ago

1) You're mistaken. I'm NOT saying that's why they behave the way they do. . .I'm saying We Don't Know; we CAN'T know, but even if you DID apply human logic, the complaint still fails. You're having trouble understanding this: essentially, I'm saying the complaint is absurd either way.
2) You have no idea what you saw. What their level of tech is, how it manifests, what the appearance is, what the aliens look like au naturel, etc.
3) YOU DON'T KNOW what their intelligence level is. Are they scientists? Lost explorers? Last dregs of a vanished race? Interstellar truckers? YOU DON'T KNOW. Incredible you can't grasp this concept.
4) No. Just. . .no:
If you got arrested for murdering someone in a bowling alley, and fled to Australia, and got caught, and got put on a jet back to Chillicothe, Ohio to stand trial, and the jet crashed in the outback, and you escaped and went into the outback and started terrorizing natives with a machine gun you found on board because an exotic arms dealer happened to be smuggling a crate of them on that same plane. . .does that mean you know ANYTHING about jet planes, machine guns, navigation, physics, or ANYTHING?
(Hint: NO)
The complaint is ABSURD. Whether you can understand that simple fact or not.

[–] BeaSouth (2878) 22 days ago

The movie tells us it’s an invasion of 275 spacecraft across the globe. We see images of the endless hovering ships said by media reports to be staging over all the major cities worldwide. We learn the crop circles are a sophisticated navigation system installed by the aliens as coordinates for the invasion.

At the denouement, we witness an alien screaming and writhing in pain when water connects with its skin during Joaquin Phoenix’s assault with the bat. We see a cup of water fall from atop the T.V. and spill onto the alien’s exposed face and listen as it screams in reaction and then suddenly turns into a powdery white as it becomes motionless and dies.

You’re stubbornly re-writing the movie with wild hypotheticals just to explain the glaring story weakness. We’ll never find any common ground as long as you argue a non-existing fantasy movie that changes with every post and I stick with the actual movie portrayed onscreen.