MovieChat Forums > Rose Red (2002) Discussion > Disdain for skeptics

Disdain for skeptics


In spite of being a rationalist and skeptic, I like a bit of fantasy and supernaturalism in a movie, and I get that the point is not to paint a realistic picture. And I'm enjoying this as far as it goes (I'm about halfway through the second episode right now).

But seriously, why does there have to be such an obvious contempt of skeptics in movies like this? Sure, the premise requires that the skeptics live in a supernatural universe, and thus they will inevitably turn out to be wrong. But does every skeptic character really have to be such a huge, spiteful, closed minded dick? It really started to rub me the wrong way in this miniseries. Although, to be fair, most of the non-skeptic characters are not particularly likeable either.

The choice of making the main character a (fringe) scientist leads to some other rather silly moments. Favorite one: upon entering the house, a gust of wind blows a door shut. Without missing a beat, the supposedly rigorously scientific parapsychologist, who earlier on claimed to be interested in super solid evidence that would convince even the staunchest critic, immediately declares it a "phantom draft". Yay science! }||o|

reply

Well it just makes sense to have skeptic people being absolutely horrible because then there is no-one out there pushing Joyce Reardon's buttons to force her into going to the extremes she does to get proof - if she wasn't pushed then it would be boring and she probably wouldn't have gone insane... also we need skeptics to be one of the antagonists of the story rather than just having the house and Ellen Rimbauer and Sukeena as the villains.

reply

Its stephen king. If there are two things he hates its religiuos people and sceptics.



---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.

reply