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)
BaconIsMyBFF
13th Jul 2017
Aliens (1986)
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.
In the Alien universe, double YY syndrome is a fictional genetic anomaly that appeared in 22nd century and resulted in men having only two Y chromosomes and no X chromosome.
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.
6th Apr 2017
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Stupidity: Early in the film, Peter Parker desperately wants to see Mary Jane's performance, but he is turned away at the theatre doors because he is a few minutes late. Defeated, Peter shuffles away and sulks. Seriously? Why couldn't Peter simply enter the theatre through a side door or the roof? He's Spider Man.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There's two things to consider here. First, a major theme of the film is Peter struggling with keeping his Spider-Man and Peter Parker lives separate. Peter makes every attempt to get to the show on his own, as Peter by riding on his scooter. Simply breaking into the theater after he has been turned away would ruin the idea that keeping his two lives separate is a struggle. It would instead imply the opposite, that Peter can simply use his powers to solve his problems whenever it's convenient. Secondly, the usher makes it clear that no-one is to be admitted after the show has started as this would disturb the guests and possibly the performers as well. Sneaking into the theater could very well ruin the performance and Peter obviously wouldn't want that.
If there's one thing we know about Spider-Man, it's that he is incredibly stealthy, often coming and going without any detection whatsoever. He could have easily accessed the building and watched the show from a secluded vantage and even met Mary Jane backstage afterwards. Certainly in this case, using his powers would be justified, given that it was more important for Mary Jane to know Peter attended the show, rather than simply giving up.
He doesn't want to do any of that, though. He wants to go to the show as Peter, with a ticket, sit in a seat with the rest of the people, enjoy the show, and see Mary Jane afterwards. He stops the car chase as Spider-Man after his scooter is wrecked and instead of web-swinging to the theater, which would have been much faster, he chooses to change back into his regular clothes and drive the criminal's car. Sure, he certainly could have used his powers to get into the theater but the point is he doesn't want to. The fact that he chooses not to use his powers and instead deal with the consequences of hurting Mary Jane's feelings is the entire point.
And besides he'd probably get kicked out of the theater if he was caught.
20th Feb 2018
Kong: Skull Island (2017)
Plot hole: The idea that Marlow would simply take a taxi to his wife's address after being missing in action for thirty odd years is stupid beyond belief. He was on a ship sailing from the central Pacific for days and those ships have radios! The US military would have known he was coming. Someone, somewhere would have notified the authorities that a US serviceman long thought dead was actually alive and on his way home and his wife and son would have been there on the docks to greet him, not standing slack-jawed in the kitchen dropping trays of drinks on the floor when he turned up! What would have happened if she had remarried? Or moved house? Or she was dead? Don't tell me the US military didn't know he was coming - he is wearing a brand new uniform, clean and pressed.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The implication is that Marlow went through an extensive debrief and nobody had contacted his family until the debrief had concluded, based on the top secret nature of the mission. As you say, the fact he has a brand new uniform suggests that he has contacted the US Military prior to ever contacting his family. The fact that his wife would have moved and re-married is irrelevant, he still would have made an attempt to contact her so he could see his son.
And they wouldn't have contacted her after the debrief had been completed? What utter nonsense. Allowing him to just turn up on the doorstep without notifying his wife first is an utterly irresponsible and even dangerous act. She could have fainted with shock or even had a heart attack. She would absolutely, definitely, 100% carved in stone, been advised of her husband's survival and return.
Since we know very little about the completely fictional organization Monarch, we obviously cannot say they would "carved in stone" do anything. In order to be a mistake in the movie, it would have to be something that is impossible. A secret government organization that doesn't even exist in real life not behaving the way the real military would is not impossible. At least not by the rules set forth in the film. It's perhaps improbable but it is most certainly not impossible.
It is an inviolable, carved in stone, fur lined, ocean going, top of the list rule that the next of kin are immediately advised of the change of status of military personnel. MIA, now confirmed dead? They'd be the first to know. MIA, now confirmed to be alive, same outcome. His wife would know he was on that ship coming home.
This is true in real life but in the fictional world of the movie Monarch is a secret, government agency that has some degree of control over the military. You can't apply the same rules as in real life in this situation.
13th Jun 2007
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Plot hole: The only reason the terrorists' plot can work is that the airports around Dulles are all closed to landings because of the violent snowstorm. If there were no storm, the pilots of the airliners in the holding pattern would simply divert to nearby airports when they started running low on fuel. If they were able to do that, the whole plot would simply fall apart. How were the terrorists able to count on the storm happening on the very day General Esperanza's flight was due to land? They didn't have any influence over the date of his flight. How did they know the storm would be so bad that all airports would be closed - except Dulles? I don't think they had any way of predicting the weather quite that accurately, and If the storm hadn't hit or had been even slightly less severe the pilots of the stranded airliners could easily have diverted to any one of half a dozen alternate landing sites, including a nearby Air Force base. They could do this without consulting or even contacting air traffic control. The whole plot falls apart from there - no hostages, no leverage, and who cares what happens to the people on Esperanza's plane? They'd have it shot down as soon as they knew Esperanza had killed the pilot and taken over the flight.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The terrorists in the film planned extensively for this operation, but the storm occurring may have just been a coincidence for them. They may also have had the plan waiting for a perfect opportunity, like a snowstorm. In the beginning of the movie, there's a news story on while the Colonel is exercising nude. The story says Esperanza's extradition has been long and drawn out, until a phone call from..." and he cuts the TV off. Given his connections, Colonel Stewart may well have been able to arrange a State Department call the week of a predicted snow storm. Esperanza's adherents may also have been able. Another scenario they may have had is to take the Air Traffic Controllers hostage (as they did) and have the other aircraft diverted for a supposed emergency, but the snowstorm worked out. Whatever the case, that element of the plot is an interesting discussion, not a mistake.
If the storm hadn't hit the pilots of the stranded airliners could easily have diverted to any one of half a dozen alternates, including a nearby Air Force base. They could do this without consulting or even contacting air traffic control. The whole plot falls apart from there - no hostages, no leverage, and who cares what happens to the people on the Esperanza's plane? They'd have it shot down.
That bothered me too when I first saw this in theatres. The chances of it snowing in D.C. on any particular day are pretty low, and the plan falls apart without it. The only way to 'fix' this is to assume that when the film was originally written, it was set in New York City. This makes more sense thematically...with the original set in Los Angeles. But at some point, probably late in the production, they changed it to D.C. for some reason, and made it fit as best they could.
The snowstorm was not part of the plan. Early on when the group of terrorists is sitting around the table about to exchange the package, Cochran is listening to a weather report and states that a huge storm is approaching, which makes the other men smile and one of them responds "God loves the infantry." The terrorists could still crash planes without the snow storm because they could impersonate the tower. The planes that are circling overhead are the planes that didn't have enough fuel to be diverted to another airport and that has nothing to do with a snow storm. The blizzard was simply fortuitous for the terrorists.
The airliners we see could easily glide to any one of seven nearby airports from the airspace over Dulles, let alone fly there when fuel began running low.
That is a separate issue (and is indeed a mistake in the film) that doesn't really have anything to do with the blizzard. This film acts as if Baltimore Washington International or Richmond International Airport don't exist.
And since they do, it is both a plot hole and a factual error. If they had called their fictional airport Springfield International, fine, but they didn't. They identified it as Dulles International which is within easy flying - or gliding - time to half a dozen other airports.
This is possible that other airports were closed due to bad weather.
Which necessitates the terrorists knowing that! They had to know the storm was coming for their plan to work. The stranded airlines could easily have diverted to an alternative even if that meant gliding, and they could do so without consulting air traffic control.
The terrorist obviously knew that. They are very arrogant and planned everything very accurately. They knew that other airports are closed because of the bad weather.
The airports were closed AFTER Esperanza's flight took off. The storm is an essential part of the terrorist's plans. Storms like the one we see can can diminish very rapidly or veer away from their original course (I have seen both happen) and cannot, ever, be counted on to the meticulous extent the terrorists do.
25th May 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: Why do those charms disappear at the end? Does Ren use the force to destroy them?
Answer: Luke took them from the Millennium Falcon and gave them to Leia. He wasn't actually there, and was instead a force-projection. When he died and his projection disappeared, so did the illusion of the dice that he had brought with him.
Luke disappears well before the charm. Also, the charm had a physical presence (I.E. you could pick them up) whereas Luke did not.
Luke didn't disappear "well before" the charm. The scene of his death plays out first for the audience but his disappearance and the disappearance of the dice were supposed to be concurrent. It's also not entirely true that Luke didn't have a physical presence. He holds Leia's head and kisses her physically. Presumably he could choose what was physical and what was not and chose to not have a physical presence when he dueled Kylo Ren. This is further evidenced throughout the film when Kylo Ren's hand gets wet from the rain after "force Skyping" with Rey and later on when the two are able to physically touch.
23rd Aug 2018
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Question: Why did the writers decide to have Snoke killed just like that? Fans have spent the last two years wondering about so many theories about who he is, so was it really wise to kill him that early on without even the slightest hint as to who he really is?
Answer: According to reports, JJ Abrams had different ideas for each characters' story arcs while he was directing "The Force Awakens"; when Rian Johnson signed on as director for "Last Jedi", he basically decided to ignore Abrams' ideas and create his own direction for every major character, including Snoke. Since there is still one more film left in the current trilogy, though, we may learn more about Snoke's true nature in Episode IX; the possibility also exists that he may return as a Force ghost or in a cloned body, at least according to fan theories.
Answer: I know this caused quite the uproar with a lot of the fans, but looking back at the original trilogy, how much information was known about Emperor Palpatine when he was killed off? None of this was addressed until the prequel trilogy many years later.
Exactly. I have made this same argument so many times. Back when the original trilogy came out, none of us were running around complaining that we never found out the Emperor's backstory.
I was merely asking why they decided to kill off Snoke this early.
To be more to the point of your question, it seems that Rian Johnson believed (in my opinion, correctly) that the Snoke character added very little to the story and his death would be shocking to the audience. As a virtual copy of Palpatine in almost every way, the audience expected Snoke to fill a similar role in this story and last well into the third film. By killing Snoke so early, you get rid of a pretty useless character and also shock your audience, leaving them with no idea what direction the story will take going forward.
5th Oct 2018
Aliens (1986)
Question: How did all the colonists get relocated to where the queen is? Do the aliens paralyze them when interacting with them? I can't imagine Hudson going there to be cocooned without struggling.
Answer: In the original script, yes the aliens have a barb at the end of their tails which is used to sting their prey and paralyze them. This was deemed unnecessary, however and the idea was dropped. We are shown an alien grabbing Dietrich and carrying her away and they do indeed just seem to strong-arm their victims and carry them, kicking and screaming the whole way. Bear in mind that a xenomorph is considerably stronger than an average human. It doesn't appear to be any more difficult for them to carry an unwilling human than it would be for a parent carrying a toddler throwing a tantrum.
Could be even more than that, they could concuss their captives or release some sort of odour that causes sleepiness. Could be anything. The captives always wake up cocooned before being impregnated so they are anesthetized at some point. We know the facehuggers anesthetize their victims, so the fully grown xenomorphs must have still have the same chemical compound as well.
The comic books and novels go into great detail regarding the chemical the facehuggers use to put people to sleep. It has a name and everything. This chemical is what causes some people to have nightmares while they are subdued. Curiously, I've never noticed them saying the adult xenomorph also uses the chemical but like you say, it stands to reason that they do. Why the movies and novels etc. ignore this element entirely is anyone's guess. It seems like an interesting element that has been consistently left out and, like you also say, people just seem to "wake up" after being cocooned but before they are impregnated so obviously they were put to sleep at some point.
7th Sep 2017
Gravity (2013)
Question: Are Bullock's reactions to all the situations she encounters logical, considering she is a trained astronaut? For instance: she repeatedly noticed that she is running out of oxygen, but she still keeps talking, screaming and hyperventilating. The first thing you have to do is to get your breath under control, but she keep talking and screaming all the way... Would a person like Bullock get through all the NASA psychological tests?
Answer: Dr. Stone isn't an experienced astronaut. She is on her 1st mission, a mission that is continually disastrous and claims the lives of two people. Her panic, even considering her training, is more than justified.
"Her panic even considering her training is more than justified" I wouldn't be so sure about that. Jack Swegiert, and Fred Haise were not experienced astronauts either during the Apollo 13 accident, but they managed to remain calm, and not panic given the psychological tests they went through.
That's true but nobody died during Apollo 13, communication with Houston was not severed, the astronauts were not alone, etc. It's a different situation. Given the circumstances of her specific mission, primarily the fact two men died on the mission and she was left alone with no help, her panic does not seem to me to be unrealistic.
Answer: While she is a specialist who was cleared to be on the mission, she noted that she received only 6 months of prior minimal training and was mediocre-she noted crashing the simulations, getting sick during training, etc. not to mention having past trauma involving her daughter. Their allowing her to proceed was more about opening space to civilians and possibly for public relations purposes than about her being an astronaut.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: Is there anything to suggest that someone couldn't leave the grail in the cave and come back every 50 years or so to "top off" their immortality?
Answer: It doesn't appear to work that way. The power of the grail heals Henry's gunshot wound instantly and it keeps the knight looking about 80 years old. However, there is nothing in the film to suggest that simply drinking from the grail and leaving the cave actually extends your life. In fact, Henry drank from the grail and died a natural death a relatively short time later in between this film and the next.
Actually it is stated that Henry Jones Sr. died either in 1951 or 1956. So either at the age of 79 or 85 and at least 13 years after the events of the Last Crusade movie. Whilst this is not an extremely old age, there is no reason to think his life wasn't extended by the grail. Indiana himself got to a high age himself, having drunk from the grail.
I don't think the series is implying that either Jones man lived a long life due to the grail. In fact it would seem to go against the irony of the grail as presented: that it does give you eternal life but you are confined to that cave to enjoy the benefits. Maybe if they had said Henry Jones died at the age of 120 or something out of the ordinary, but they specifically state he dies at a perfectly normal, non magical age.
Well it's never stated that it gives eternal life only to the person staying in the cave either. That's what the question is about. If the healing properties of the grail work on someone who leaves the cave, there is no reason to think their life isn't extended (technically it already was in the case of Henry Jones Sr.) as well. It is possible though, since the knight looked pretty old, that the grail only heals, and that healing extends life but one has to drink from the cup frequently (like every day) in order to stay alive, whilst still getting older.
The knight does say that the grail cannot leave the seal, which is the price of immortality. He is implying that in order to reap the benefits of eternal life you must stay in the cave. The way it seems to work is that in order to extend your life in any meaningful way, you must drink from the grail often. Just leaving and coming back whenever you need a jolt would effectively make the rule about not taking the grail out of the cave meaningless. How often you need to drink is of course not specified. In order for the film's ironic message about the grail to make any kind of sense, you would need to drink from the grail so often you would effectively be stuck in the cave. Possibly drinking from it every day. In which case, like the knight you would just live at the cave and never leave. The knight's brothers both left 150 years after finding the grail, but one of them died shortly after leaving, never making it out of the desert. So with regards to the original question: "can you just come back every 50 years or so?"; it would make the most sense based on what we see in the movie, what we know about how long Henry Jones Sr. Lived, what we know about the knights and how long they lived, and the message the movie is saying about the irony of the grail that the answer to that particular question is "No."
I wonder if someone were to bring a large storage vessel to the cave, and fill it using the Grail, if they could then take that water with them and drink it later... Man, the scientist in me really wants to resolve this.
Drinking from the grail is not the same as pouring water out of it into another vessel. Drinking from the grail is symbolic and there is no real power that it bestows upon the water in it. However, if the grail was able to pass the properties to another vessel, one would have to assume the temple would collapse on itself when attempting to take the secondary vessel out.
Answer: It's stated by the ancient knight that the Grail's powers do not extend into the outside world. He himself was immortal only because he remained at the site, drinking the water, for hundreds of years. Henry Senior was instantly healed on-site, but he and Indy continued to age normally once they left the site.
Then why didn't Henry's wound return when he left? Their healing extended their lives. It got rid of any bad cells, to go scientific.
Because cell deterioration due to aging happens spontaneously, i.e. you've got to keep removing the bad cells. Bullet wounds are not spontaneous...once it's gone, it's gone.
Why would his wound return? He was instantly healed. From that point forward he was in normal health, even after crossing the seal. Indy actually drank from the Grail, which meant he was immortal for a few minutes, but his immortality did not follow him beyond the seal.
It's the difference between believing the power of immortality comes from the cup or staying in the cave. The knight was immortal because he kept drinking from the cup, not because he stayed in the cave. The cup has healing powers, and simply growing old is not the reason for death, regenerating cells will keep you alive, so if the cup regenerates cells, you are immortal from drinking from it, as long as you do it regularly. That's how the knight has done it and why he looks old and is frail. Going outside doesn't negate the powers of the cup, or Henry's wound would have returned. Therefor, going back often to drink from the cup will extend your life. It will cure you from any ailments that accompany old age like heart disease, cancer and brain degeneration.
The Grail Knight plainly says: "You have chosen...wisely. But, beware: the Grail cannot pass beyond the Great Seal, for that is the boundary, and the price, of immortality." Therefore, you remain immortal as long as you don't cross the seal. If you are healed instantly inside the boundary of the Great Seal, then you are healed. Period. It's not just a magic bandaid that disappears if you cross the seal.
2nd Mar 2014
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Question: If Ripley was operated on and an alien removed a few days ago, how come they have a fully grown queen who is laying eggs, 8 to be precise as there are 8 people who have been ingested and turned into aliens? But later, when most of the crew have ejected successfully or been killed when a hand grenade was thrown into their escape pod along with an alien, one of the scientists says there are 12 more? How can that be?
Chosen answer: Well firstly the queen was probably genetically engineered, like Ripley herself. A few days might be all the time they need to have a fully grown queen created. Secondly the 8 incubated victims were only the latest batch, they had been incubating people with xenomorphs for quite a time I suspect.
With regards to the quick growth of the alien queen, it is standard for the xenomorph in nearly every film they appear (Aliens is the only exception, the only chestburster shown in the film is quickly killed by Apone) to grow to full size in around one day. Presumably the same is true for the queen.
18th Oct 2017
Aladdin (1992)
Question: When the genie learns that Aladdin tricked him into getting them out of the cave without making a wish, couldn't he have just teleported Aladdin, Abu, and the carpet back inside the cave to make sure Aladdin wishes himself out of the cave?
Answer: He is not an evil genie and, even though he was tricked, he would not have wanted Aladdin to be trapped in the cave again. He likes Aladdin and admires his cleverness in getting himself out of the cave without wasting a wish.
What I was wondering is why he likes Aladdin.
"He is not an evil genie" who says only an evil genie would teleport Aladdin, Abu, and the carpet back inside the cave to make sure Aladdin wishes himself out of the cave?
27th Aug 2013
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
Question: One of the taglines for this film is "It's nothing personal". I have no idea what that has to do with the film and was hoping someone could explain it.
Chosen answer: Two possibilities. 1: The Terminator is emotionless, so the killing isn't personal, but rather what it's programmed to do. 2: Sarah Connor's plan to kill Miles Dyson to stop Skynet's creation.
It's also a sly nod to another famous tagline, Jaws: The Revenge. "This time it's personal."
8th Oct 2018
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Question: Why would Flash Thompson of all people attend Harry's funeral? He bullied Peter and Harry in the first movie.
Answer: It had been a few years since they were in high school. Perhaps Flash had matured since then and realised his behaviour towards them was wrong, so he came to pay his respects.
This is true to the comics. Eventually Flash matures and becomes close friends with both Peter and Harry.
19th Jan 2009
The Dark Knight (2008)
Question: When the Joker is giving his speech to the people on the ferries, there is a shot of him in the Pruitt building. The camera is behind him and in the reflection on the glass you can see him reading his speech from a piece of paper. Why is he doing this? Is it to make sure he remembers his own plan? Or is there something else going on?
Answer: He's got a big speech to make - seems reasonable that he might have made some notes so that he didn't forget anything. Most people do that under such circumstances. There certainly aren't any indications in the film that it was anything else - while it might be a mistake, it fits the scene well enough that there's no way to tell either way.
His voice also definitely sounds like he is reading, in this scene and also when he calls into the talk show to threaten Coleman Reese. It does not sound like "off the cuff" dialogue. Apparently the Joker writes speeches like this down and reads directly from his notes.
3rd Sep 2010
The Fugitive (1993)
Question: Towards the end, before the confrontation with Kimble and Nicholls, the guy who was tracing Kimble's phone records tells the Marshalls that Kimble telephoned Sykes on the night of his wife's murder. But obviously it wasn't Kimble calling Sykes, it was Sykes using Kimble's phone. But why would Sykes be calling himself?
Chosen answer: He didn't. A key plot point is that Nichols borrowed Kimble's car on the night of the murder. The call to Sykes, which is expressly stated by the marshals as being on Kimble's car phone, was from Nichols, presumably arranging to meet so that he could give Sykes Kimble's keys to get into his house to lie in wait for him.
Thank you for explaining it. I've seen it several times and never realised how it went down.
And Tommy Lee Jones tells Kimble that they knew Nichols called Skyes from his car, but how? Wouldn't the more logical answer have been that the US Marshals thought that Kimble called Sykes from his car to tell the killer his wife was home alone? There is no way the US Marshalls would have known that the Kimble let Nichols borrow his call - that's the mistake in the movie! It actually should have made the Marshalls suspicious of Kimble, not exonerate him.
The Marshals know Kimble let Nichols borrow his car because Kimble told the police when he was initially interviewed following the murder. He gave a detailed account of his actions and whereabouts that night and mentioned that Nichols had borrowed his car. It didn't seem suspicious to the police at the time because Richard claimed he fought with a one armed man he didn't recognize; a story the police did not believe because there was no evidence of this and Kimble's wife "identified" her attacker as Richard. Gerard puts everything together when he realises that Nichols lied about knowing Lentz.
How did Sam figure out that Nichols borrowed the vehicle and made the call to Sykes and gave him keys, etc? I know in the laundry he reveals that he knew this but when/how did he figure it out?
Ok, so why didn't Kimble's lawyer use this information? It would make no sense for Kimble to call Sykes; they could've solved the case easily if they had actually done some digging and not thrown Kimble under the bus.
Answer: This is more of a question really. What kind of defense attorney did this high dollar, Dr. Kimble hire who do not show their defendant pictures of the one-armed men the police question? How do his attorneys not ask him "OK, which of these one-armed men did you fight with in your house?"
The prosecution is not required to inform the defense of every person the police interview or question. They are only required to give the defense whatever evidence they have against the accused. Simply questioning someone in a perceived dead only counts as evidence against the accused if the prosecutor mentions it in court. If the prosecutor were to say "We interviewed a one-armed man named Sykes and he says he doesn't know you", then Kimble's defense would be required to be given access to Sykes. We can assume this never happened.
Yes, but what about the phone call made from the phone in Kimble's car to Sykes on the night of his wife's murder? It's said that Kimble gave the car to Nicholls, and it would make no sense for Kimble to call Sykes.
The Chicago police DID question Sykes after the Kimble murder. Review the scene where Sykes returns to his apartment after Kimble has been there. Girard starts asking Sykes questions, at first Sykes says he doesn't know anything about Kimble but then "remembers" that he had been interviewed by the police right after the Kimble murder. However, Sykes says that he gave the police an alibi, with 15 people supposedly confirming that Sykes was on a business trip and not in Chicago. The movie then implies that Sykes had been a Chicago cop and lost his arm "in the line of duty." Remember that the Chicago police focused on Kimble pretty quickly. Their investigators may have interviewed Sykes, but they likely didn't even come close to considering him as a potential murderer. Even with Sykes likely matching Kimble's description of the one-armed man, the police likely saw Sykes as a former cop... A former cop who had an alibi confirmed by 15 people. As I understand it, prosecutors don't have to tell defense attorneys about everyone that the cops question. They only have to tell the defense about potential witnesses that might be called in connection to the criminal trial. In this scenario, Sykes wouldn't have been part of the criminal trial (Again, supposedly on a business trip confirmed by 15 people on the night of the murder) and thus Kimble and his lawyers would never have known about his existence.
12th May 2017
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: Why do the tripods make a horn sound?
Answer: Adding a horrifying sound is also intimidating to the people they're attacking.
Answer: It is a signal to the other tripods. They coordinate their attack with the signals. For instance, a specific horn sound is heard when a tripod discovers a group of humans and other tripods come to assist.
But if it is the case, there would probably be a more efficient way to communicate. They can travel through the lightning but they can't use a walkie talkie.
We know virtually nothing about the aliens or their culture. Using the horns in this manner could be ceremonial. It's also a misconception that a society more advanced than ours must have mastered everything our society has mastered. Just because they built death machines millions of years ago doesn't necessarily mean they ever developed a walkie talkie. The Martians seem to be perplexed by the wheel. The scene with the wheel also occurs in the source novel, wherein the narrator theorizes Martians never invented the wheel, "skipping over" this crucial milestone in human advancement.
In addition, it can be used as a way to intimidate the populace of Earth, to try and make them panic into poor decisions.
I mean, from a cinematic standpoint it definitely darkens the mood even more. A walke talkie wouldn't hold the wow factor as a loud sinister horn sound did.
Each tripod seemed fully capable of destroying anything (and enough) around it. Your idea is as good as any, but it seemed like the tripods just came out wherever they were buried and did their own thing without assistance. Besides, didn't a lot emerge from the water?
Answer: The sound of the said to be *horn* could be a way of asking for assistance or giving off their location to other tripods.
Answer: I thought it happened when the tripods flushed waste. Kind of like grunting is to humans.
Answer: I "thought" (guessed) it was to blow out any dust/debris that may have accumulated while underground and/or "fire up" (energize) their weapons before shooting.
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.
TonyPH