Stupidity: Lao Che's intention was to kill Indy. He had no intention of giving him the antidote. So then why would he bring a real antidote? Why not just fill it with something else instead? From his perspective, bringing a real antidote was a waste of time, and also very stupid in case Indy managed to get it, which he did. In fact, Lao Che could've brought a fake antidote and given it to Indy. He probably wouldn't have noticed the difference, and then there wouldn't have been a fight in which one of his men was killed.
BaconIsMyBFF
3rd Nov 2017
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If you're using a poison it is always worth having an antidote nearby just in case something goes wrong.
Lao Che could still have the real antidote in his pocket and give a vial a fake antidote to Indy. Plus, if you're implying Lao Che would need the antidote should he accidentally be poisoned, it would also be a stupidity for him to give the antidote to Indy.
Lao Che's goal is not to kill Indy, it is to get the emperor's remains without having to give up the diamond. He even tries paying for the emperor outright with valuable coins. He brings the antidote in case he loses track of the poisoned glass and the wrong person is poisoned. He never intends to actually give the antidote to Indy, he's only using it as leverage so Indy will hand over the diamond without making a scene. Indy only gets the antidote after he kills Lao's henchman and the antidote is knocked off the table.
28th Dec 2018
Alien (1979)
Question: Why did the last three remaining crew members split up? Surely it would have made better sense to stay together as up until that time the alien had only attacked people when they were alone.
Answer: They felt like they didn't have enough time. Parker and Lambert stayed together to get coolant while Ripley was to prepare the shuttle and set the auto-destruct. They wanted to escape as soon as possible. Staying together would have, in their minds, lengthened the time they were on the ship with the alien.
Answer: Fair point but I don't think that the Alien would have attacked three people because when it moved in to kill Lambert it didn't know that Parker was behind it.
You're basing that on what you know about the alien from watching the films. The characters at this point have no real idea how the alien would behave. For all they know, it could start reproducing asexually and there could be six more of them on the ship.
Don't understand what you mean, sorry.
You are saying that you believe the alien wouldn't attack three people together. That's because you've probably seen the films and have a pretty good understanding of the creature's biology and behavior. The characters in the film have no idea how it behaves or how it will behave the longer it stays alive. The biology of the alien is so different from anything they've seen and they want to get away from it as soon as they possibly can.
16th Jan 2019
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Question: Arnold said that when the T-1000 took the form of someone he would likely terminate the person being copied. Why didn't the T-1000 kill Sarah? He had been in physical contact and could mimic her voice. There was no reason to get her to call John at the end, he could have killed her immediately.
Answer: In addition, another deleted scene shows that the T-1000 was damaged by being frozen and thawed and was having difficulty maintaining form. He wanted to be sure he wouldn't mess it up.
What's especially odd about the scene is that both examples we gave to help answer this question were actually deleted from the original release. When I first saw this movie in the theater when it was released I had the exact same question, it wasn't until I saw the Special Edition with the deleted scenes reinserted that it made sense.
Answer: It comes down to the difficulty in impersonating someone John actually knows. The T-1000 had failed impersonating someone close to John when he got the name of the dog incorrect. A deleted scene (re-incorporated into the film in the Director's Cut) shows him checking the dog's tag afterwards, so he is aware exactly how he was outsmarted. Keeping Sarah alive is a way to avoid this sort of mistake. She is more useful to him at this point alive. He is not expecting her to endure his torture and he certainly isn't expecting her to be able to fight him afterwards.
27th Aug 2003
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: Why didn't the machines send the T-1000 back in time to 1984 to help the first Terminator? Even if the rebels had sent the reprogrammed T-800 back to 1984 as well that would have confused the hell out of Reese and Sarah, which would surely only have helped.
Correction: For that matter, why the machines didn't send the T-1000 to kill Sarah Connor when she was a kid - and, thus, an easier target? Or why didn't they send the T-1000 to kill John Connor when he was 9, instead of 10 years old? That was an arbitrary choice of the script, and any year would give space to questioning. So, why bother? The real reason was: the movie was made in 1991 and so Cameron decide to set the story in 1991.
The story is set in 1994.
27th Aug 2001
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: In one scene, the police shows Sarah a picture of Arnie taken from a surveillance camera at a police station in 1984. But in that picture, Arnie has the same haircut as in the rest of the film. In the first Terminator film, Arnie has longer hair and a different haircut. (00:42:50)
Correction: In the first film during the police station sequence, Arnold did have shorter hair. He cut it himself after reparing his eye and arm.
It's true that he has a different hairstyle during the police station sequence, but it wasn't cut by the terminator himself. The T-800 is set on fire during the foot chase in the alley after the nightclub sequence. From that point forward, the terminator has the "spiky" hairstyle for the rest of the movie. James Cameron chose to have the T-800 in T2 have a look closer to the look the character sported in the final 2/3 of the original film (spiky hair, leather jacket, sunglasses, motorcycle) because that is how the character is most remembered by audiences.
17th Feb 2004
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: When the T-1000 and the T-800 first come face to face, the T-800 pushes John Connor through a door to get him away from the gunfire. The two cyborgs then proceed to empty their guns into each other, finally resulting in the T-1000 being knocked from its feet. Now, why did the T-1000 waste its time (and ammunition that could have been used to pick off Connor) firing a 9mm at the T-800 (when weapons of this sort do no serious damage to its endoskeleton), when it could have strode up and did much more damage with its hands/blades? Surely a Terminator would know the strengths and weaknesses of a fellow SkyNet soldier?
Correction: This falls under the heading of "why didn't this happen?" For one thing, it's far more likely that the T-1000 was actually trying to shoot John - John was only protected because Terminator used his own body as a shield.
The idea that terminators are not programmed to fight/kill one another is an important plot point in Terminator 3. The T-X was specifically designed to combat other terminators.
1st Sep 2003
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Corrected entry: When the T-800 first sees John Connor on his bike with his friend, he zooms in to check the identity, and the close-up shows us Johns face with his hair nicely done and hanging down - however, wouldn't his fair be thrown backwards, accounting for the speed they were going on the bike?
Correction: That was a photo that the Terminator had, so he could identify the target.
That's not correct, the image we see in the T-800's vision is supposed to be a zoomed in image of John Connor on his motorcycle, but is a still photograph.
6th Feb 2019
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Question: Aunt May subtly reveals, or at least implies, she knows Peter is Spider-Man when she's moving. Does she know in the comics? Because I remember in the comics she does not seem to like Spider-Man at all?
Answer: In the main Marvel continuity Aunt May does eventually find out that Peter is Spider-Man. Her memory is wiped of this knowledge later on.
Answer: In Amazing Spider-Man Vol 2. Number 35 Aunt May permanently finds out about Peter's secret identity and knows from then on.
That gets changed later on. Not sure which issue but it's after Civil War, she has her mind wiped after Peter gives her radioactive blood to save her life. I'm not entirely sure if that too is eventually changed but from what I remember Aunt May hasn't known his identity since Civil War.
Yeah it does switch around a lot. Dr. Strange made it so nobody will find out unless he wants them to. I suppose Aunt May doesn't know anymore then.
Keeping up with comic book continuity is an absolute nightmare.
I couldn't agree more. I've always wished for some kind of easy, interactive overview of what I was reading. I've actually given up on comics because of the hellish chronology. Well, except Judge Dredd which is pretty straight forward.
26th Apr 2016
Aliens vs Predator: Requiem (2007)
Question: Was the Predator in this film dishonorable at some stage in its life? Its pincer (not sure the actual name) things on its face, one is half gone and he has scars. Is this because he's experienced (hence why he's there) or does he do it because he needs to earn honor back for something (again, hence why he's sent on a suicide mission)?
Chosen answer: Although not proven, the injuries and the wide array of trophies and equipment may imply a long life of hunting. Further as it is receiving official distress signals from what may have been the home world, it is possible it plays the role of 'clean up crew' to mitigate exposure of Predator activity and lost equipment to prey species.
According to the directors, the injuries were a direct homage to Broken Tusk, the primary Predator character in the original Alien vs. Predator comic book.
27th Aug 2001
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Cole tells his mother his secret, all the cars stuck in traffic have Pennsylvania inspection stickers on the lower part of the windshield. However, the car that Cole and his mother are in does not. (01:31:25)
Correction: It is not unrealistic to believe that the car was simply not inspected.
Speaking as someone who lives in a state that requires stickers such as these, it is practically unheard of to see a vehicle without inspection stickers of any kind. Even brand new vehicles sold on lots in Pennsylvania are inspected and have the stickers placed on their windshields before anyone even buys them. Plenty of people drive with expired inspection stickers (Pennsylvania requires a vehicle inspection every year), but it is exceedingly rare to see a Pennsylvania vehicle with no inspection sticker at all. Driving without inspection stickers would risk getting pulled over by the police every single time you drive in the state. While it is technically not impossible for a Pennsylvania resident to have a car without inspection stickers, it is so uncommon that its omission here is definitely an oversight by the filmmakers and still should count as a mistake. It would be similar as having a vehicle with no license plate at all; while technically not impossible doing so would be an act of incredible stupidity that would make the character driving the car seem ridiculously unrealistic were it not explained by the plot.
27th Dec 2001
Predator (1987)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Mac and Dillon attempt to kill the predator you see the rear view of Mac's head being blown clean off his shoulders, yet when Dillon discovers his lifeless corpse a few moments later his head is intact and there is merely a trickle of blood running from his forehead.
Correction: The head isn't exploding, the blood is just raining down on the camera.
The back of Mac's head was blown completely out, the shot following the camera being covered in blood confirms this and it also confirms that Mac's head was not entirely blown apart. The entry wound is small while the exit wound is enormous. This is consistent with how the weapon works when Blaine is killed.
27th Jan 2014
Prometheus (2012)
Factual error: In the scene showing the two left-behind crewmen as they discover the snake-like alien, one of them reports to the ship that the creature is "30-40 inches long." The scientific community worldwide has been using the metric system for decades and it would seem highly unlikely a trained member of a starship crew would revert to such an ancient system of measurement.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It would be terribly unlikely for a trained member of a starship crew to do that. As it happens, he's not a trained member of a starship crew, he's just a hired mercenary.
Neither Millburn nor Fifield are mecenaries. Millburn is a biologist and Fifield is a geologist.
12th Jan 2013
Prometheus (2012)
Corrected entry: When the Prometheus collides with the departing spaceship, the close up of the impact shows devastating damage which results in a massive explosion and fireball as seen from the ground. However as the spaceship falls to earth there is no sign of any damage from the collision or explosion in the area where the Prometheus hit the ship.
Correction: I think the director's intention in showing almost no impact damage on the alien ship is to show that the construction and technology of the Engineers is far more advanced than the Human advancements. The Engineers have such an advanced technology that their constructions are far more superior than ours, and it might also be due to the fact that the Engineers' ships are made of an element that cannot be found on Earth, an element that is virtually indestructible. This is only my interpretation.
Ramming the Prometheus into the alien ship caused enough damage to disable the ship and send it crashing back down to the planet. If the implication is supposed to be the alien ship is so advanced it doesn't take damage, then it makes no sense that it crashes.
11th Jun 2006
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: Not really a HUGE mistake, but when Ripley finds Newt in her hole the first time you can see lots of boxes laying round with rations or MRE's in them. But later when the female medic is checking her out she says she is suffering from "Borderline Malnutrition" How is that possible when she had so much left over food?
Correction: The term "malnutrition" does not necessarily mean that you have had too little food, it also includes the bad effects of an improper regular diet. MRE's are not designed to be eaten on a regular basis, but as emergency food when nothing else is available. Newt has eaten MRE's for a very long time, and is suffering from the ill effects from this (most likely constipation and lack of proper vitamins).
Not to mention people who have suffered severe trauma often lose appetite. Even though she has collected food she may not be eating as regularly as she should. With nobody around to counsel her or force her to eat she is probably not getting regular meals or resting as often as she should.
11th Aug 2004
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
Corrected entry: Nitrous oxide is not activated like a turbo boost on a video game. You switch it on before the start of a race and it is activated at a specific throttle position. Drag racing isn't a chess game where you have to trick the other driver as the last second to win.
Correction: The button on the steering wheel is used to activate the nitrous system's second stage. Brian does in fact receive a notice that stage one is complete.
This doesn't address the mistake. The mistake in the film is that the drivers use nitrous like a turbo boost in a video game, where it is used at just the right moment. The film implies that knowing when to use nitrous is a skill that is learned through experience. Tran and Toretto both demonstrate this. Tran even says "Too soon, Junior." when he's racing Jesse, implying that if Jesse had more experience he would have known not to use his nitrous early. This is hilariously false, as nitrous oxide is used for the entirety of a drag race to boost the engine's overall power. The point of a drag race is to get to the finish line first, there is no way you would "hold back" your engine power and use the boost at the last second to overtake your opponent. If you had been using the boost for the entire time you would get to the finish line faster. The film implies this is done because nitrous is dangerous and if you use too much your engine will be destroyed, which is also ridiculous.
13th Jul 2017
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: When Ripley and the others are trying to figure out what they are dealing with Ripley suggests something is laying these eggs since there must be over 100. But she knows there already are hundreds if not thousands of these eggs so there is no reason to assume something is laying new ones. (01:34:40 - 01:35:15)
Correction: Ripley is running through the logic and realizing there is something they don't yet understand about the alien's life cycle: where the eggs come from. Even if they happen to be the same eggs from the derelict ship, the eggs had to have been created at some point, by something. But how? What is this process? She may have started out talking about how the specific colonists were taken over, but by the time she asks "who's laying these eggs," she's asking about the concept, in general. Because unless the creatures were specifically bio-engineered not to be able to, they almost certainly have the ability to create more eggs.
Correction: That's exactly what she means. She's saying something must've laid the eggs, and will likely continue to lay more.
But there is no reason for her to say there must be a queen lying these eggs, she knows there are eggs, there have been eggs there for decades.
In Alien, she doesn't know that though. She and the rest of the crew don't know what they've seen and what they're up against. Yes, she knows it's an alien but that's it.
She knows there are eggs from experiences in Alien where the eggs are discovered in the alien spaceship. Yet we don't see a queen alien. In Aliens, they aren't in the alien spaceship, they're in the atmosphere processing plant. Yes they're both on the same planet but do you think the eggs walked from one location to another? There must be something laying new eggs which Ripley hasn't yet seen.
My idea is that either the colonists or the xenomorphs themselves brought the eggs over to the colony. Perfectly logical if there is no queen. Sure it's also logical to think there is a queen, as movie viewers, but my point is there is no reason for Ripley to think something is lying these eggs whilst she knows there already were thousands of eggs.
Ripley is making the (correct) assumption that because the colonists are being taken deeper into the colony, and that the aliens have built a hive in the colony itself; that the eggs found there were laid there. If the hive had been built inside the derelict spacecraft, then Ripley likely wouldn't have made that assumption.
But why not think the aliens had taken the eggs from the derelict craft and taken them closer to the incubators, thus inside the colony? I just think it's far-fetched she immediately starts talking about a possible queen whilst there is hardly any reason to do so, where did the queen come from supposedly? All they know is some people from the colony brought aliens inside them into the colony and then all hell broke loose. Her assumption is nothing more than to help the plot along.
I don't think her assumption is far fetched at all. She assumes that the eggs must have been laid by something; which is logical. She then assumes the thing that laid the eggs is continuing to do so; which is also logical. Where the queen came from in never addressed in Ripley's conversation with Bishop. The two are merely speculating that there must an alien lying eggs and it must be something they haven't seen yet. It's quite a bit of a leap to think that the aliens somehow know that there are additional eggs miles away from the colony and they should go get them and bring them back. This borders on clairvoyance. It is much more logical, based on what the characters know and see, that the eggs in the colony were laid there.
But those eggs in the derelict ship have been lying there for an eternity, even if you would only count the amount of time Ripley has been asleep since she encountered them, no reason to think at all new eggs have been laid, no reason. Thousands of eggs were inside the derelict ship, the colonists were exposed to the aliens through those eggs, brought back to their colony inside themselves (they didn't bring eggs). It's ridiculous to think something then came, a queen, and nested inside the colony, unless a queen was brought along by the colonists, but Ripley and nobody in general have any idea how the aliens reproduce. It's more logical to think the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed. That's more of my point, the name "Queen" being used. That's what borders on clairvoyance. We know the Aliens have extrasensory perception (as shown in this movie) so them being able to sense the eggs that far away is a lot more believable to me.
I'm struggling with understanding your reasoning for why it is so unbelievable that Ripley and Bishop deduce that something is lying the eggs. Their explanation doesn't come anywhere close to clairvoyance. They make a logical guess that eggs are laid. They deduced, along with Hudson, that the creatures behaved in a similar fashion to ants or bees. That would mean logically a queen is lying the eggs. Once again, where the queen "came from" is never addressed in their conversation because it is irrelevant. The characters have much more than a general idea of how the creatures reproduce, they know everything pertinent except where exactly the eggs come from. I'm not understanding why you say it to be more logical that "the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed." If you are saying it to be more logical to think of the aliens as closer to chickens than ants (i.e., each creature lays it's own eggs), that doesn't make sense because they are basing their "ants" theory on the presence of a hive.
Well all right they may have guessed how the aliens behave and reproduce correctly, they did see all colonists together and probably incubated, a nest, fine. To me its all about the idea Ripley starts talking about a queen being down there from the fact there are over 100 eggs down there. Again, she knows there are thousands of eggs on the derelict ship already. What we know doesn't work for Ripley who knows nothing about those things. They aren't even sure how the aliens got to the colony and Ripley never mentions the derelict ship that had thousands of eggs again. For all she knows the colonists had already taken eggs from the ship back to the colony, why not think that's what going on? But she immediately jumps to the queen theory, which helps her later on.
Ripley mentions the derelict and the thousands of eggs both in the inquest and again on the Sulaco, both prior to the mission starting. Once they arrive on the planet and discover the hive they deduce that it might work like an ant colony or bee hive. Ripley questions "So what's lying these eggs?" to which Bishop responds "It must be something we haven't seen yet." Hudson is the first to suggest a possible queen. This conversation doesn't help Ripley later on in the movie. She literally just runs into the queen's chamber completely by accident. The conversation is just there to plant an idea in the audience's mind that there is an alien queen. You are arguing that based on what the characters know, they should have come to an incorrect conclusion (the aliens are taking eggs from the derelict back to the colony) rather than the correct one, if they came to any conclusion at all. You also say that "what we know" doesn't apply to what Ripley knows about the creatures, except that isn't true at all. At this point, Ripley knows everything about the aliens that the audience knows. Coming up with the idea that "these things built a hive like bees do. I wonder if that means they have a queen like bees and ants do?" is completely rational.
Let's agree to disagree then. What we know as the audience is that some colonists went to the derelict ship and brought back aliens inside them, Ripley and the marines don't know that as contact was lost and Newt isn't telling anything. Where do the eggs come from? The derelict ship should be the first idea, not that something is lying them, inside the colony even. Sure something once has laid them but that could have been thousands of years ago, where would a queen come from? All this, no logical reason to assume there is a queen. That's my opinion and why I posted the mistake.
We cannot agree to disagree because your theory is incorrect. It is safe to say that Ripley would logically deduce that neither the colonists nor the Aliens are capable of bringing 150 eggs hundreds of miles back to the derelict. It not possible. And as we see, the eggs are freshly laid, glistening wet. The most logical explanation is that a Queen was birthed from one of the colonists, as later happened to Ripley herself in "Alien 3."
If the colonists didn't bring eggs back how and why did they get facehuggers into the containment tanks and had time to study them? They just happen to have caught some? If they were that much into a crisis they wouldn't have wasted time examining them. No, they brought eggs back to study them, everything was going well until some got loose and escaped underneath the processing station, including a queen. Ripley never saw the eggs amount in the colony and the old ones looked just as "fresh."
If they brought back eggs, where were they? All we saw were the facehugger specimens. Surely Cameron would have shown us eggs in addition to them. He doesn't miss details like that. As such, the two live ones were "surgically removed before embryo implantation." Remember? The dead ones were from colonist rescuers answering Newt's family's mayday call. No way did they try to bring back the eggs without having gotten inundated first. Come on man.
It's not even the point. My point was always the use of the word Queen and Ripley's blind assumption the eggs were being laid fresh.
Again, that was the logical conclusion, not someone transferring dozens of eggs hundreds of miles from the derelict to the colony. Why would the colonists waste time doing that? Put yourself in Ripley's head for a moment. You don't really believe that in all that was going down that she'd logically conclude that someone, whether it be human or alien, would travel back and forth hundreds of miles to the derelict and bring eggs, do you? Neither did Cameron.
Note that when this scene starts the characters' discussion has been going on in circles for quite some time (much like this thread!). Ripley recaps what they've deduced so far ("let's go over it again") in the present tense, describing what appears to be an ongoing reproductive cycle (which if correct would render the derelict's eggs kind of moot) and when it hits a blank she prompts for suggestions. These aren't "blind assumptions"-they're testing theories and drawing tentative conclusions.
A Queen was obviously brought along by the colonists, as Ripley was impregnated herself by one in "Alien 3."
I never denied there was a queen brought back. But certainly not in that one facehugger that got stuck to Newt's dad's face. They brought back more. They had to, they must have contained the first one.
Obviously they did bring back more. Rescuers to Newt's family were inundated with facehuggers. Two were removed surgically before embryo implantation. The other three, which may or may not have included Newt's father, successfully implanted their embryos. One of which was obviously a Queen.
I find the theory that the aliens travelled hundreds of miles out to the derelict to fetch over 150 eggs to be far-fetched. Obviously Ripley logically deduced, based on the fact that there was a hive in the processing station, that there was something laying eggs.
The colonists were told by the company to find the derelict ship and bring back eggs to study, they were told, and they had plenty of time to get a lot of eggs before things went wrong for them. Newt's dad was just an incident, they continued their research and brought more and more eggs over. Therefore there is no reason for Ripley to think those eggs are freshly made.
Nope. Simpson, in the Special Edition, was told by Burke to investigate a grid reference. No explanation. Newt's family investigates and her father is facehugged. A rescue team comes to them and several members get facehugged as well. No eggs are transferred. The Aliens, including the Queen, are borne of these colonists and the Queen lays the eggs. Period. There is every reason for Ripley to think those eggs are freshly made. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas but you are dead wrong.
So you are telling me the people rescuing Newt's family were stupid enough to enter the ship as well and get facehugged just like Newt's dad did? And then more rescuers came to rescue these new schmucks? That's even more stupid.
Stupid people do stupid things. Ever read a story of how someone goes in a manhole and is overcome by carbon monoxide or something similar? They rarely find just the one body, but usually the one or two people who go in to "rescue" the first victim.
I've got no problem with stupid people doing stupid things. I just don't know what's the problem with my theory, if it's plausible. Again, it's not even the point of my problem with the scene in question.
Newt's parents did a stupid thing too, as did Kane. Otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. It's that your theory is implausible, period. The derelict served its purpose in the story and was no longer a concern to Ripley. She logically concluded that the hive eggs were being laid by someone or something. Surely no-one else was going back into the derelict to bring back eggs after what happened. Lesson learned. Occam's razor: all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
27th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Stupidity: Ground troops armed with semi-auto handguns, automatic rifles and even heavy artillery just keep wasting ammo, barrage-after-barrage, magazine-after-magazine, against giant robots and monsters 100 feet tall, long after it becomes obvious that the weapons have zero effect. This is an ongoing stupidity dating back to some of the earliest giant monster movies, and is still seen in giant monster and superhero films today.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Surely in the face of a no-win scenario, doing something that may or may not work is better than doing nothing and awaiting your doom. They would be doing everything they could to stop the enemy in the hopes of saving lives. Even if it takes every last round of ammunition, it may eventually be enough to wear down the monster / robot etc.
I hate to disagree. I think one of the best examples is the latest Godzilla movie where they keep firing their hand guns on it knowing it would be better to just get out, there was absolutely no point to do that. Same goes for Man Of Steel.
In everything from old Godzilla movies to modern superhero and kaiju flicks, we see military forces line up and throw every bit of small arms and heavier artillery they have at the giant monsters or giant robots, with zero effect. The military always retreats, regroups, then lines up and wastes all their ammunition again, as if they learned absolutely nothing from the first experience.
In a no-win scenario, you beat a hasty retreat and live to fight another day, hopefully better armed and better prepared next time. You don't hold your ground, futilely trying to bring down a giant monster the size of a Hilton Hotel with small arms fire.
It's strange because I can understand why filmmakers still do this, even though it makes little sense. They are trying to show that the monster, robot, whatever is unstoppable by conventional means and honestly I don't know how you would do that without these kinds of scenes. Even though they are dumb. It's extra dumb to me when you hear the General yell "Stand your ground, men!" or something like that. Or when the cop runs out of bullets and throws his gun.
I've seen too many scenes where they keep shooting, apparently to no avail, BUT there is always the chance that hitting the "monster" in a certain spot could get it to retreat. Instead of just continuing to rapidly fire with the general intent of hitting the monster, it would make much more sense to focus on a possible soft spot, such as an eye. The "just keep firing" mentality does fall under "stupidity." The military should be using a strategy that is rational, and emptying machine guns isn't.
9th Oct 2015
Alien 3 (1992)
Corrected entry: In the credits - and the warden says it - they mention chromosome YY, or double YY. But that is impossible; women are XX and men are XY; you have to have an X chromosome, sometimes you can have XXY, and maybe there are other variations, but there must be an X, no matter what.
Correction: XYY chromosomes in human males is quite common and is usually referred to as YY syndrome (though it isn't really a syndrome, medically speaking). They are using medical shorthand. Nothing unusual about that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome.
This explanation is incorrect. The warden is using "Double Y" as shorthand for "male" and not referring specifically to any medical conditions the inmates might have. He is discussing the fact that a woman entering the facility full of violent men is problematic. The dialogue is incorrect as it assumes that females are "Double X" and males are "Double Y" when in fact males would be "XY", as the original entry states.
9th Jan 2019
The Terminator (1984)
Question: If the Terminator had succeeded in killing Sarah and effectively wiping out John Conner, then that would mean the machines would win and even kill off mankind. So after Skynet's mission was complete and all humans are dead, what would the machines do now that with no more humans left to kill?
Answer: It's really impossible to answer definitively, considering the film-makers have never addressed this. The films never specify any purpose Skynet has outside of wanting to wipe out humanity. Skynet simply wants to "live", to exist as a sentient consciousness but views all of humanity as a threat to its existence. Since artificial intelligence is thus far only a fictional concept, we can't even really speculate based on information outside of the Terminator series. We can perhaps imagine a scenario wherein Skynet is successful and lives in peace as the only intelligence on Earth. The machines themselves do not have individuality and only exist for the purposes of killing humans so there doesn't seem to be a logical reason why they would exists if Skynet wins. However, there doesn't seem to be any reasonable way Skynet could ever be sure they have killed every single human on the planet so I can also imagine a scenario where the machines endlessly patrol the planet, making sure humanity never rises again. Also, and this is food for thought, the time travel scenario present in these films is a grandfather paradox. Skynet leads to it's own creation by sending back a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor. Similarly John Connor is conceived because a Terminator was sent back in time, which is the paradox. Skynet winning would create another paradox wherein Skynet could not exist because John Connor was never born so they had no enemy to fight, etc. This sort of stuff can make your head explode.
Just to be clear, the first movie doesn't say that Skynet created itself by sending a terminator back, that's the second movie. Also John Connor never being born doesn't remove their enemy, humanity is their enemy, it would stop the resistance and prevent the humans from winning, presumably. It does create a paradox though, like all time travel movies do.
The first movie deleted specific scenes which referenced the defeated Terminator being used to create Skynet. This of course was fully formed in the sequel. Technically since they are deleted scenes they may not belong in a discussion about the first movie but I was speaking generally with regards to the series as a whole. It's really only relevant to my point about the paradox which doesn't really have anything to do with the original question. Also, John Connor is specifically Skynet's enemy. Without him humanity would have been easily defeated. Technically, yes they want to wipe out all humanity but without John Connor they would have succeeded and there would be no need to send a terminator back in time, which of course is the entire point of the series. Both the humans and Skynet believe this to be true.
John Connor is the key to the paradox, true. Since John was created by Skynet's own attempt to stop him it's impossible for them to win the war. All movies tell us (except the horrible, terrible last one called Genisys) that skynet can not win the war by time travel. I had a whole essay written down but I decided not to post it, since talking about paradoxes is a paradox and they are highly interactive. Catch my drift?
Thinking about paradoxes in movies like these can drive you insane.
Yeah, but it's so much fun.
Agreed. I actually really love the paradox in the first Terminator. The idea that John gave Kyle a picture of his mother and Kyle fell in love with her because of that picture, and he always wondered what she was thinking about when the picture was taken, and it turns out she was thinking about how much she loved Kyle. Brilliant.
Yeah, you know now I think about it, the first movie doesn't have a grandfather paradox at all, it's the exact opposite. They actually created a loop, the time travel made the resistance exist and skynet always will try to use time travel to destroy the resistance. The paradox, is the sequel, where they make us believe the time travel also made skynet, which is impossible and an actual grandfather paradox because skynet invented time travel (since in the second movie the time travelling terminator from the first movie became the "grandfather" of skynet basically). Maybe we should move this to the Forum though.
23rd Jul 2018
Speed (1994)
Corrected entry: Soon after Jack gets on the bus, Howard can see the bus on the news. Why is the news at this stage covering this? The only thing that has been suspicious is someone from a car coming from a car onto a bus, but what has happened before this that makes this newsworthy? Looks like regular traffic is flowing up to this point. (00:44:00)
Correction: It is extremely common for news helicopters to cover rush hour traffic in major cities. If a news crew happened to be monitoring the freeway and noticed a pedestrian running to catch up to a bus, stop a convertible dead in its tracks, get in the convertible, catch up to the bus, the man jumps from the speeding car onto the bus at 50 plus miles per hour, and the car then crashes; it seems fairly normal for the bus to be on the news by this point. It certainly isn't a plot hole.
But for that scenario to work, not a single element can be missed. If the film crew missed any of it why would they film the bus?
I don't think if a single element was missed it wouldn't be newsworthy. If, for example they missed everything but a man jumping from a moving car onto a bus I still think that makes the bus newsworthy. That's really the only element that can't be missed by the news for this explanation to work. Payne himself comments on Jack's bravery in getting on the bus so that means he saw it. The only thing that could make the news following the bus a plot hole would be if Jack managed to get on without any fanfare at all, which of course didn't happen. It can't be a plot hole because it's not impossible for the news to have followed the entire incident of Jack getting on the bus. The fact that they may have been able to miss something doesn't make it impossible that they didn't.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.