The Happening

[Sainters7]

Saw The Happening on Saturday night, I can't even remember the last time I saw a movie I disliked more in theatres(it also ruined a streak I had going of seeing movies that I ended up really liking). It just bored the crap out of me. At one point, I leaned over to my gf and whispered "If we were in an aisle seat, I'd leave right now", to which she responded "I'd be right behind you". It starts off well enough, but then IMO goes straight downhill after that. For me it ranged from boring to laugh out loud ridiculous, I definitely rolled my eyes a few times during this one. Awful.

From the comments I heard around me as we were leaving, the majority seemed to agree with me.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

Just wondering, do you consider The Hulk or Indiana Jones, or Sex in the City, or Iron Man original ideas? I am not defending Happening I already said I did not like it that much. It's just interesting to me to find out the current movies that people like, that throw out the "stupid" and "dumb" and "######ed" words.

I think it's pretty hard these days to find "original" or "creative" films.

Nope, those aren't creative either.. as you say I think it's very difficult to come up with a truely original or creative film or work. And that's not a bad thing, taking something that's already been done and spinning it in a new way or looking at it from a different angle can result in great stuff.

I'm not knocking this film for that, I just said that because some see Night as so original and creative, and while I think he has gobs of talent and love some of his works, I don't think original is a word to use.

I believe M Night missed the mark with this one, but was right on the money with creativity and originality with the Village, Lady In The Water, and all of his others.

The Village didn't appeal to me as I could see the "twist" a mile away, and wasn't sure if there was enough there otherwise to make it worth watching, though I've always intended to see it. I loved Unbreakable (nothing original, but a great imagining of a premise I thought), and Signs was very nice as well. Didn't like Sixth Sense much but scary movies aren't my thing anyway, they either bore me or go too far the other way and scare me too much, I can never find the middle ground where I enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That's the premise? No, that is what the characters in the movie came up with as an explanation...and that was never confirmed in the film. The actual 'villain' remains unknown and given the evidence in the movie my guess is that there are enough holes there to let you know that it's not supposed to be plant vigilantism.

Hm interesting, I was going by all the reviews I'd read, one specifically said

SPOILERS!!

Elliot used the "scientific method" to discover plants can "spontaneously evolve" in response to a threat. Maybe plants think humans are threats, and "spontaneously evolved" in an "act of nature" to manufacture a toxin that switches off humans' self-preservation instincts?

Moves that get science REALLY wrong bug me because I think they harm science literacy in general, but then again I do have an axe to grind in that area

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'm just curious, what other movies had the premise of plants developing the ability to evolve and combat humans by releasing toxin into the air?

I'm not saying that's it's a brilliant idea, but I thought it was original if nothing else. I haven't seen a movie or TV show with the same premise.

It was a book actually, I'll see if I can find the title, it's in the recesses of my memory.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Hm interesting, I was going by all the reviews I'd read, one specifically said

SPOILERS!!

Elliot used the "scientific method" to discover plants can "spontaneously evolve" in response to a threat. Maybe plants think humans are threats, and "spontaneously evolved" in an "act of nature" to manufacture a toxin that switches off humans' self-preservation instincts?

Moves that get science REALLY wrong bug me because I think they harm science literacy in general, but then again I do have an axe to grind in that area



.

Did the movie get the science wrong or did the character? I thought the ending with the same thing starting (clearly overseas) kind of disproved Elliot's misguided theory.

[Aeneas]

Originally Posted by photon

Nope, those aren't creative either.. as you say I think it's very difficult to come up with a truely original or creative film or work. And that's not a bad thing, taking something that's already been done and spinning it in a new way or looking at it from a different angle can result in great stuff.



It was a book actually, I'll see if I can find the title, it's in the recesses of my memory.

I remember "Deathworld" by Harry Harrison. Had one part about a planet that was trying to kill off the human settlers, but not with an evolved toxin just real nasty vegetation and animals.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by photon

SPOILERS!!

Elliot used the "scientific method" to discover plants can "spontaneously evolve" in response to a threat. Maybe plants think humans are threats, and "spontaneously evolved" in an "act of nature" to manufacture a toxin that switches off humans' self-preservation instincts?

Moves that get science REALLY wrong bug me because I think they harm science literacy in general, but then again I do have an axe to grind in that area

So basically, The Happening is to evolutionary biology what The DaVinci Code is to Catholicism.

I just hope that too many people wouldn't try and take any theatrical production to base their knowledge of any subject on.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Aeneas

I remember "Deathworld" by Harry Harrison. Had one part about a planet that was trying to kill off the human settlers, but not with an evolved toxin just real nasty vegetation and animals.

Hm.. maybe, but that doesn't ring a bell. I tried to find it and couldn't, it's waaaay back though.

Like I said I don't think there being a book on it previously detracts from it though (what, we can have only ONE zombie movie?? )

FA heh, I'd bet on the general public going way askew on science 10 times out of 10. The reviews I've read have a real gaia "act of nature" there's some things that can't be explained feel.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Did the movie get the science wrong or did the character? I thought the ending with the same thing starting (clearly overseas) kind of disproved Elliot's misguided theory.

I agree wholeheartedly. If anything, the fact it happened again in Paris, completely independent of the North Eastern United States, disproves the "it was the plants evolving" theory.

Only thing is, if it was terrorists, why the heck would you attack Paris next?

[J pold]

Originally Posted by photon

It was a book actually, I'll see if I can find the title, it's in the recesses of my memory.

In terms of plants evolving to destroy humanity there is “Day of the Triffids” a classic John Wyndham novel, expect the entire world doesn’t go blind in “The Happening”

[photon]

Now that sounds familiar, could be I remember reading The Chrysalids as a kid and really liking it, I could have read that one as well.

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'm just curious, what other movies had the premise of plants developing the ability to evolve and combat humans by releasing toxin into the air?

I'm not saying that's it's a brilliant idea, but I thought it was original if nothing else. I haven't seen a movie or TV show with the same premise.

Believe it or not, it has been done before. Not all the details are 100% the same but it has the same premise

It was an episode of the original The Avengers from the 4th season Episode 10 called the Man-Eater of Surrey green. It aired originally in 1965

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Believe it or not, it has been done before. Not all the details are 100% the same but it has the same premise

It was an episode of the original The Avengers from the 4th season Episode 10 called the Man-Eater of Surrey green. It aired originally in 1965

I guess my point is that it hasn't been done to death, and I haven't seen any example of it before. There's a theory that there isn't any original ideas for stories since Shakespeare, that they all follow the same basic format. I never doubted that it's been done before, I just didn't know where.

Originally Posted by photon

Now that sounds familiar, could be I remember reading The Chrysalids as a kid and really liking it, I could have read that one as well.

I loved that novel as well. However it was about humans evolving telepathic powers after a nuclear holocaust. For some reason I got the biggest kick out of the fact it was set in Labrador.

[flip]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I agree wholeheartedly. If anything, the fact it happened again in Paris, completely independent of the North Eastern United States, disproves the "it was the plants evolving" theory.

Only thing is, if it was terrorists, why the heck would you attack Paris next?

wait why does the fact that it happened in Europe as well disprove the plant theory?

It is possible for 2 different groups to evolve in the same way at on different parts of the globe with no interaction. example: humans in many parts of the world have made simultaneous discoveries without ever having made contact. hell even civilization itself started independently of each other across the globe at roughly the same time.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by flip

wait why does the fact that it happened in Europe as well disprove the plant theory?

It is possible for 2 different groups to evolve in the same way at on different parts of the globe with no interaction. example: humans in many parts of the world have made simultaneous discoveries without ever having made contact. hell even civilization itself started independently of each other across the globe at roughly the same time.

Perhaps it can, I'm no scientist, but I'm under the impression that if isolated species would evolve differently. You wouldn't have the exact same effect no?

[flip]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Perhaps it can, I'm no scientist, but I'm under the impression that if isolated species would evolve differently. You wouldn't have the exact same effect no?

Oh, I'm not so sure either just pointing out (and I haven't seen the Happening) that if it did spread to Europe, it may have been suggesting something bigger for the plants, instead of throwing a wrench in the plants theory.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

Perhaps it can, I'm no scientist, but I'm under the impression that if isolated species would evolve differently. You wouldn't have the exact same effect no?

Species have evolved similar traits being isolated from each other, but evolving a trait and evolving a complex mechanism are 2 totally different things. A complex mechanism takes a very long time and is a collection of individually evolved traits. The chances of 2 organisms in isolation developing a series of traits that develop into a complex mechanism at the exact same time (right down to the month) would be astonomically rare.

A plant evolving a toxin to combat human impacts would not happen suddenly amongst several individuals. There would have been proto-versions. Similar to an eyeball... there were "proto-eyes" (collection of light sensitive cells) long before actual eyeballs existed.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Species have evolved similar traits being isolated from each other, but evolving a trait and evolving a complex mechanism are 2 totally different things. A complex mechanism takes a very long time and is a collection of individually evolved traits. The chances of 2 organisms in isolation developing a series of traits that develop into a complex mechanism at the exact same time (right down to the month) would be astonomically rare.

A plant evolving a toxin to combat human impacts would not happen suddenly amongst several individuals. There would have been proto-versions. Similar to an eyeball... there were "proto-eyes" (collection of light sensitive cells) long before actual eyeballs existed.

so what you're saying is possible, but not bloody likely due to the time frame given?

[photon]

For sure, plus plants couldn't "evolve" toxins to fight humans, that's not how evolution works; it isn't targeted with a goal like that.

As deus ex machina I guess it's fine, I just don't like that movies take the easy way out so so often when doing it right would be so much better with so little extra effort.

It's like sounds in a space movie, or computer movies where they have the "Are you sure you want to overload the power grid. Yes/No" prompt. It makes suspension of disbelief too hard.

Plus I get the impression from some reviews that it was intentional for a gaia new agey science is only a theory nature wins kind of view.

[Got Miikka?]

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT:


I watched this movie yesterday. And... it did in fact... well, actually, I don't want to go so far as to say 'sucked', because comparatively-speaking, Lady In The Water SUCKED, so this, not being as bad as Lady In The Water, could therefore not accurately be described as a sucky movie. But it wasn't very good.

A lot of debate going on about 'biological evolution' in this thread. Do not put words into this movie's mouth. This movie goes to great pains to explain the 'happening' as nothing more than an inexplicable act of nature; 'inexplicable' becoming a great overall theme for a movie that really makes no sense. The script makes a couple of references to the scientific method and Mark Wahlberg has an awkward discussion with his high school class about it but do not mistake this obvious exposition for thoughtful or thought-provoking writing. Shamalyan's script works hard to evoke plausiblity but the result is almost unfailing in its lack thereof. There are some great unintentional laughs. A zookeeper goading lions into ripping off his limbs or a man turning a riding-mower on himself: these are meant to be shattering and disturbing sequences but ultimately stifling a loud guffaw proved difficult. The sequence where the two kids Wahlberg's crew is travelling with are shot in the head is outrageous. And what the fack is up with the old lady at the end? Is she supposed to be some kind of lame metaphor for the plants themselves?

All that slagging aside I thought this movie actually had a lot going for it. The pacing of the film - which is thnakfully short at about an hour and a half - moves along slowly at an almost meditative speed, which gives the movie a creepy feeling. Despite the clunky dialogue and lousy characters I thought Wahlberg and even this Zooey Deschanel (what's her deal, anyway - she's always weird in every movie) managed to find some salvage. Rumor has it Shamalyan is given total creative autonomy over his work; if true, he might do well to allow others some input because this movie was a few tweaks away from being fairly decent (in other words, manipulating or underplaying its faults so as to appear more mysterious, or less hammy). I guess M. hasn't ever heard of War of the Worlds, though, because the premise of the ending of that story is rather remarkably like the one that comprises this entire story.

Oh and as far as the Hitchcock-complex: Shamallama's role in this movie is limited to a single line of dialogue spoken over a cellphone. Phew! Sweet relief after having to endure his part as a central character in the last movie...

[rubecube]

I think Shymalan is one of the most overrated directors of the last 15 years. The dude made one really good film (The Sixth Sense) and his apologists have been cutting him ridiculous amounts of slack since. Each movie since The Sixth Sense has been substantially worse than the one previous to it.