Talk:The Happening

Really, the film is sexist? Wow. That figures because all IDers must be sexist also. SHahB 15:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, Shabby! "The Happening is sexist because all Christians are" is far too strong for an opening sentence, and unencyclopedic to boot. What were you thinking, Trent?? 15:18, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * IDist derive their theory from their religion, they also tend to be fundamentalist of their religious sect. Most religions, particularly when filtered through the fundamentalist, are pretty horrifically sexist. It is not much of a stretch. But that is not the logical chain for why this movie is criticized for sexism. Its the content of the film that does that. 15:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, sure. Whatever you say. SHahB 15:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


 * 
 * Eh, Paul wasn't a real Christian.  ħ uman  15:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Then what? An illusionary Christian, perhaps? -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 15:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Considering how he came to be a Christian I think thats exactly right AK. 15:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What does that have to do with it? -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 15:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * His conversion was facilitated by a desert mirage. 15:47, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * But convert he did, regardless of the circumstances. -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 15:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yah, converted, then ruined it for everyone else...  ħ uman  16:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * How so? -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 16:13, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, for starters, he wrote that tripe quoted above, right?  ħ uman  16:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * What exactly do you expect? This is the first century we're talking about. There were hardly any feminists around back then. -- AKjeldsen Potential fundamentalist! 16:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I know, but teh Jesus guy was a bit of a revolutionary. Paul strikes me as being a bit reactionary, overly compromising the teachings in order to spread them more easily.  But then, I'm not a Bible scholar, either.  ħ uman  19:16, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Wherein we express our disappointment at the star's career choices
If this stuff's accurate, then Shamalamadingdong's lost a lot of respect in my eyes. Not that The Village didn't already do that... --Kels 17:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree. If the blog entry (in According To) has the measure of this film, then it really is an unforgivably poor addition to his work. And you forgot Lady in the Water. Urgh. I wish I could. 17:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * I didn't forget it, I just haven't seen it. The Village was an interesting concept, but it ended up looking like something from a film school's second-year project.  Pity, since I really liked Unbreakable a lot. --Kels 17:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, Unbreakable was excellent. Hard to believe it's the same person, really. 17:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I just saw the movie, and though it wasn't good, the whole ID and sexism thing is very minor. It's bad science, but it's also a work of fiction. Not every film with a premise that doesn't measure up under scientific scrutiny is anti-science. As for the sexism, if you want to see it, you'll see it, but to say that one of the messages of the film is that women are babymakers and that's it is to really put words in Shamalamramgan's mouth. DickTurpis 14:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Orphanage
Can anyone find this lonely page some parents?  ħ uman  02:16, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
 * If we had a category on movies/films that would help. Expelled, Bowling for Columbine etc. etc. etc. could all get shoved in there. Armondikov 10:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Indeed. And the cat could go in cat:media (which I think we have), along with cats like "books" (?) and stuff. We don't have a B for C article.  So, "films" or "movies"?  ħ uman  16:11, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Films sounds more professional. Which is why we should go with movies.  ThunderkatzHo! 16:17, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
 * How about flicks, then?  ħ uman  16:30, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Moving pictures? ThunderkatzHo! 17:09, 17 September 2008 (EDT)  Edit: P.S., you might want to check your sig.  17:10, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, my fault. 17:11, 17 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Then we'd have to have an article on Rush...  ħ uman  17:12, 17 September 2008 (EDT)

Why ... do we have an article on this?
It has nothing to with, well, being rational about anything. It's a film, for Pete's sake. -MugaSofer (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a category 'bad-science' fiction? There are some stories where science has moved on/the timescale is out, and others are 'simplifying for the sake of the story'/taking certain premises as given (eg Faster than light travel exist)/are playing 'what if' and extrapolating etc, and so do not fall into this category. Anna Livia (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * its just a shit film. we could have articles on the entire output of the sci fi channel with that criteria. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * all that complaining about bad science in films tells is that the film is too crappy to enable suspension of belief or the the folks complaining shouldnt be watching films. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)