TonyPH

8th Oct 2022

Brainstorm (1983)

Corrected entry: A device that works by reading the human brain wouldn't record the afterlife as that by definition transcends human bodily experience and occurs in another plane of existence. The movie could clear this if at any point the characters acknowledged they'd accidentally created a supernatural device that doesn't actually work the way they thought it did at all, but as is the story seems to confuse the human mind (which is dependent on the physical brain) with the human soul.

TonyPH

Correction: The device actually does cease to record anything once the user has died and all brain activity has ended: it's not that the device itself can suddenly see into "the other side" somehow, but rather it's picking up the brain's experience in the midst of death, whether induced by spiritual means or simply a dream-like interpretation by the mind.

TonyPH

Correction: This is a fictional device that operates exactly as the filmmakers say it does. Whether it works as you think it should is irrelevant.

This is 100% true, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be a plot hole, it just means the audience doesn't mind that it doesn't strictly make sense.

TonyPH

Corrected entry: Doesn't it strain credulity that the Enterprise is (once again) "the only ship in the quadrant"? In Star Trek terminology (all series), a quadrant covers one fourth of the galaxy (smaller regions are "sectors" and the boundary runs just about right down the middle of the Federation, right by Earth to be exact. Are we to believe that there is no other starship in that entire half of the Federation?

Garlonuss Premium member

Correction: Before ST:TNG, "quadrant" was a term used somewhat loosely. In the Wrath of Khan, quadrant does not refer to one quarter of the galaxy.

Look up the term "quadrant." In every single applicable variation it is some form of "one quarter of a circle."

Garlonuss Premium member

According to memory alpha, the star trek wiki, a quadrant is a major region of space encompassing a portion of a galaxy. There are apparently major and minor quadrants. The major quadrants are the 4 quadrants dividing up the milky way. Minor quadrants of course encompass a smaller part of said major quadrants. How large is seemingly quite inconsistent though. I think it has been settled upon that a minor quadrant is a couple of sectors (4) large.

lionhead

Sulu also mentions that Reliant (which is in visual range, approaching at half impulse power) is in the same quadrant, which going by the post-1987 definition would be like saying the car approaching down the street is on the same continent. It's pretty clear that when they mention a "quadrant" in this movie, they are not referring to a quarter of the entire galaxy.

TonyPH

Question: When Vader realizes that Luke has a twin sister, does he know that Leia is the sister or just that someone is Luke's sister? Or does he know when he/Anakin sees Luke and Leia during the Ewok celebration later?

Answer: Vader knows it is Leia when he first hears Luke's thoughts about his twin sibling.

raywest Premium member

I've always presumed so, but strictly speaking there's nothing evident in the scene that he specifically knows the identity of Luke's sister, all we know for certain is that he's discovered Luke has one.

TonyPH

Question: Is it true that in the original version of this that Yoda says the reason Obi-Wan didn't tell Luke the truth about Anakin turning to the dark side is because Yoda wouldn't let him?

THE GAMER NEXT DOOR

Chosen answer: Technically no. While this was never in the original version, there is however a deleted scene where this happens.

ctown28 Premium member

There are script drafts where Yoda tells Luke not to judge Obi-Wan too harshly because it was his suggestion to keep Luke in the dark about his father. However, Obi-Wan himself still seems to own his decision, citing the same belief in the film that he was right "from a certain point of view."

TonyPH

Chosen answer: No, he did not have any knowledge regarding that. Luke or Leia would have told him at some point after Vader's death, but that is not shown in the film.

raywest Premium member

Considering Leia's aghast reaction to Luke's explanation on Endor ("Your father!"), he hadn't mentioned it to her before, and I can't possibly believe he would tell anyone else before her. (On a side note, it amuses me to wonder just how long it took before Leia put two-and-two together about what this all means about HER father; the implications don't seem to have hit her before this scene is over).

TonyPH

19th May 2011

Scream 4 (2011)

Factual error: Spoiler: I saw this with two nurses who pointed this out, so I know this is correct. The final sequence takes place in a hospital room in ICU. Jill pulled out IVs and electrodes that were attached to her, then proceeded to Sydney's room. She pulled the call button, then tossed Sydney around the room. Glass shatters. She knocked Dewey out with a bedpan, fired a couple of shots from a gun, and yelled at Sydney, Gail, and the deputy. Sydney even fired the gun at one point. All of this goes on for quite some time, making a hell of a racket in ICU. The problem? The medical staff and security. Any nurse at the nurses' station would have been alerted automatically when Jill pulled the electrodes off herself, and also when the call button was pulled from the wall in Sydney's room. Within seconds there should have been someone come to the rooms to see why they were alerted, but the only time you see a nurse was when Jill hid just inside a door while making her way to Sydney's room. One walked past on her way somewhere as if nothing unusual was occurring. The subsequent fight occurs and you still don't see any hospital staff. So where were they?

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The answer to "Where were they", is; "to the mandatory meeting for all non-emergency personnel in the basement conference room." No, I am not joking, it's a message that you can faintly hear in the background (and the subtitles make sure to include it) from the hospital IP speakers. It's ludicrous and I am not saying that it corrects the entry, especially since it does not cover the fact that there should be automatic alerts and some personnel is on duty at their stations as precisely described, but just saying that the script somehow wanted to set up / justify it.

Sammo Premium member

I'm changing the type to "Factual Error" to cover this. It's not a plot hole, it's just a really, really, really, really, really, REALLY badly run hospital as far as security is concerned. And if the hospital seen in the following 'Scream (2022) ' is the same one, it's just further evidence that it's simply a really crummy hospital.

TonyPH

3rd Feb 2022

Scream (2022)

Corrected entry: It's said that Sidney appeared in every "Stab" movie except Stab 8 - but in Scream 4, Jenny says that Sid only appeared in the first three.

Correction: That isn't what Jenny says. Marnie says: "That has nothing to do with Woodsboro. I-I thought you said "Stab" was based on true stories." Jenny Randall: "The first three, The original trilogy is based off Sidney Prescott, but then she threatened to sue them if they used her stories. So they just started making stuff up. Stab 5 has time travel, which is by far the worst." She never said the movies didn't have Sidney in them after the first three, just they aren't based on true stories.

I don't think there is a leap in logic in the original post; she threatened to sue the production if they used her story, I can't see how they would avoid a lawsuit by exploiting her character further by putting her in more movies? If it's not a retcon, it's at best a rather problematic line.

Sammo Premium member

Once a film has put a character name into existence and been released, the studio owns the copyright to that name. Sidney Prescott as a character could still be used in Stab films.

For that matter, you can always argue that a person does not own the story of her own life to begin with, that's not the point. The point is that since it was stated that they were afraid of the legal action Sidney Prescott threatened, and changed course to the saga for that reason, they would -not - put Sidney Prescott in other, even more outrageous and exploitative, material.

Sammo Premium member

I'm not trying to be rude, but I can tell that you do not know anything at all about copyright law. The above user was correct. You don't know in what context Sidney was used in the following Stab films. The only thing we know about those later films is the very brief description of time travel in Stab 5, and the two fake outs from Stab 6&7.

No offense taken at all, it's true! I am no lawyer and I wasn't trying to get in the intricacies of copyright law and rights of publicity. I am just saying that the movie (previous movie, from 10 years before, in an obscure line of dialogue easily retconned or forgotten...) mentions that Sidney threatened them with a lawsuit, there's no reason why they'd stir her putting her even in cameos multiple times in their every third rate following schlocky flicks. It's simple as that. Would they win a lawsuit, on the grounds of what you (or the other poster) mentioned? Sure, but they never said she did sue them, the point was for the studio to avoid that sort of legal trouble entirely.

Sammo Premium member

I think we're looking at the difference between a mistake and a criticism with this one. I agree that in Scream 4 the most reasonable interpretation is that Sidney successfully got (at the least) her name removed from Stab 4 onward (especially since without any further "true" events to draw from they would've had to start making things up anyhow). But the line can be taken other ways, and even if it's a stretch or goes against the spirit the line was written in, it's different from a mistake.

TonyPH

It still leaves a plot hole of why Sidney threatened to sue. If not for likeness / appearance, then for what?

AdventurePlace

Corrected entry: The character of C.W. Moss's father is referred to by name only once - just before the final ambush, when Bonnie recognizes him and says, "Isn't that Malcolm?". But in the credits his name is Ivan Moss.

Correction: She is asking if that is Malcolm, not stating that it is. The answer is no, it isn't Malcolm, but that is not a movie mistake.

This is an odd one. Going by the script the character's name was indeed Malcolm at least at that point, so either the credits got it wrong or they changed the name after filming but neglected to adjust the line. Even then I'd still be willing to let it slide, but considering how few people Bonnie and Clyde know due to their lifestyle there really isn't anyone else "Malcolm" could be referring to.

TonyPH Premium member

4th Jan 2020

Die Hard (1988)

Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.

BaconIsMyBFF

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.

lionhead

So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?

BaconIsMyBFF

It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.

kayelbe

The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.

Ssiscool Premium member

Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.

BaconIsMyBFF

If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."

TonyPH Premium member

Corrected entry: When the Enterprise first encounters the Reliant, we see several screen shots of the Reliant on the Enterprise viewscreen, and several shots of the Enterprise on Reliant's viewscreen. The puzzling thing is, if you watch very closely to the shots of the Enterprise on the Reliant's viewscreen, you will notice that the stars are actually moving BACKWARD, as if the Reliant were in a slow reverse. Obviously this is an editing blooper since Khan just ordered that the ship slow to one half impulse power, which still moves the ship forward.

Correction: Trek canon has shown the viewscreens are not the same as windows, and that the screens can show us views from vantage points where no camera exists. These vantage points also do not need to be stationary. As such, the views of Enterprise on Reliant's screen are taking Enterprise's speed into account, and the 'vantage point' is backing up to keep her 'in the shot' while Reliant is still moving forward.

johnrosa

This would work except the stars continue moving when the film cuts to exterior shots where the Enterprise and Reliant are both in view, even when they are nearly parallel with each other.

TonyPH Premium member

12th May 2004

Scream 2 (1997)

Plot hole: It is highly unlikely that the murderer knew Phil was going to put his ear to the stall when he heard the babbling. It is even more unlikely that the murderer is going to get him on the first stab through the stall. (Which also requires a lot of strength). We also have to assume that he spent time hanging out in the bathroom knowing Phil would go there to begin with, and that other two men with weak bladders were doing the same simultaneously forcing the victim to go to the stall to begin with. (00:07:45)

Joel Gordon

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: The killer is incoherently whispering in a strange way in the adjacent stall to lure Phil to press his ear up against it. After stabbing him through it, the killer inspects the knife inquisitively, as if checking to see if he actually got him. While it's still not a terribly plausible scene, the killer's demeanor suggests that he encountered Phil in the restroom by coincidence and improvised the kill, rather than anticipating all of Phil's actions as part of a perfectly executed plan.

TonyPH

The general logistics and planning of the murder are a separate issue - because no, the murder was planned. The entry just says that it's "highly unlikely", putting it mildly, that the killer could guess the exact position Phil would pick to listen to the noise. Just a few inches up or down, left or right, make a huge difference. The killer looks at the knife admiring the results, because if he had any doubts that he got his victim, he'd be trapped in a bathroom with a screaming, wounded, angry Phil and plenty people who could come and help.

Sammo Premium member

To be more clear, the correction here is that Phil had heard strange talking/whispering rather than music, which makes it at least a little more plausible the killer would think he might put his head up against the wall at a certain spot. Unlikely for sure, but unlikely isn't a mistake, it's just what movies do. Phil's death was planned yes, though it stands to reason the plan was more "surveil and strike when vulnerable" and less "wait for him in this particular stall we know he'll be next to."

TonyPH

29th May 2007

Scream (1996)

Corrected entry: Sidney is talking with Stu and Tatum at the lockers when someone runs by wearing the Ghostface mask. She runs down the hall, bumping into Billy, then goes into the bathroom and meets the killer. We know it isn't Billy because we just saw him, but how would Stu get into the bathroom without passing by Billy and Sidney?

Correction: It was made pretty clear that it was two other kids that ran through the hall. There is a scene with Henry Winkler (principal) who is expelling the two students due to the prank.

Lummie Premium member

Yes, and that scene happens before the killer shows up in the bathroom, so it can't be them. Sidney also says that she knew it was really "him", the real killer, and not a prankster, and there's no indication that the movie wants her to be wrong at that time.

Sammo Premium member

The "tell" is that the shot of Sidney running out of the restroom has a voiceover from a news reporter talking about pranksters dressed as the killer. Sidney is far from infallible (she even misidentified her mother's killer) and is vulnerable and being psychologically manipulated by Billy and Stu.

TonyPH Premium member

The biggest tell would be that he has no knife, but there's nothing prankster-like in that assault, if he tackled her like that he would have hurt her (and he's in the girls' bathroom too?). The newscast about the pranksters establishes that it's the authorities' version, but the dialogue I mentioned happens later, addresses exactly that, and she negates it. I agree that Sidney is not infallible, but the fact that she was wrong (by deliberate misdirection from the real culprit) about Cotton is a specific plot point, she was supposed to be wrong and Gale even picks up on the fact that she deep inside isn't sure about it anymore. Overall the bathroom scene is one of those scenes that don't quite add up but people enjoy making theories about them ("it was all in Sidney's mind", "it was Roman", etc).

Sammo Premium member

I agree this is one of the film's weaker moments, but I don't think it's just an accident. The high school section was rearranged from the script and a couple moments dropped, and I believe it was decided during editing to make the restroom scene more ambiguous (adding the "killer's" grunts that sound younger than any of the characters; moving the reporter's monologue to the end of this scene) to make up for an unfilmed scene where Sidney encountered two more masked impostors in the school.

TonyPH Premium member

16th Dec 2004

Scream (1996)

Corrected entry: Right after curfew is in effect, when Tatum and Sydney are sitting on Sydney's front porch, you see the killer in the bushes in the background. The very next scene is of the video store where both killers, Stu and Billy, are speaking to Randy. The next scene that follows directly is Sydney and Tatum in the grocery store where you see the killer's reflection on the cooler glass. How can the killer(s) be in more than one place if this is all going on at the same time?

Correction: We see two students at the school dressed up as the killer. It is plausible that other students do it too and follow Sidney around as a joke.

One thing is prancing around at school screaming in the corridors in an obvious joke (that got both students suspended, by the way), another thing entirely is stalking someone to their home or in the streets with the police looking out for the suspect. Both scenes don't make sense other than to give cheap scares and throw red herrings.

Sammo Premium member

These moments come off silly (the one in the supermarket especially), but it's no mistake. These costumed figures being imposters wanting to harass Sidney for kicks is really the only plausible explanation, and the jaded cynicism and callousness of 90s youth culture is a major recurring theme of the film, so it fits.

TonyPH Premium member

I agree that it's the only explanation you have to give to make sense of it, but in this movie and in the next movies in the saga, when they wanna show imposters, they show prancing idiots who do want to harass and be goofs (such as the guy in the hallway in this movie). Sidney never notices those people who do absolutely nothing to be noticed, so they are there to harass the audience, not her.

Sammo Premium member

8th Jun 2005

Scream (1996)

Deliberate mistake: When Sidney is typing the message to the police, you can see that there are red lights flashing, which must mean the police are there, 5 seconds after she types. Obviously deliberately done for the humor. (00:29:30 - 00:30:25)

cameron davies

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: Contrary to what the entry says, I don't see police lights flashing as she types, nor when she talks to Billy. I do agree that still it's barely a minute before the police arrive in full force on the scene and it's pretty ridiculous (although I am not sure it's deliberate humour).

Sammo Premium member

There's a time skip between Sidney encountering Dewey at the front door and Billy being arrested. It's plausible Tatum had sent Dewey to check on Sidney knowing she was going to be late, and so he arrived before the rest of the authorities. Billy did not chase after Sidney and likely reacted calmly to Dewey to look as innocent as he could, he wouldn't necessarily have been arrested right away.

TonyPH Premium member

I have to disagree; you see Dewey's car and another cop car with flashing lights the moment she opens the door, and he instantly calls the others in, so they are already there in full force because of the 911 call.

Sammo Premium member

13th Sep 2002

Scream (1996)

Other mistake: When Casey's parents hear her on the phone, the scene shows just the killer with the knife pointing down. When he stabs her the knife quickly moves backwards in the opposite direction. (00:12:05)

Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.

Suggested correction: I am not sure I understand what the entry wants to say by "quickly moves backwards." Does this mean that the knife retracts?

Sammo Premium member

I'm guessing the entry meant that the knife appears to bend, as if made with rubber. If so, it's more than likely just an illusion due to the killer's hand being shaky. I doubt they used a bendable knife prop for that shot.

TonyPH Premium member

Corrected entry: Nothing in space could communicate with whales in the ocean without radios. It wouldn't matter if it was generating the loudest sound in the universe, or had the most sensitive mike and most powerful amplifier - sound can't travel through a vacuum. The probe couldn't "hear" the whales, and the whales couldn't hear the probe.

ReRyRo

Correction: This assumes that the probe, which does not appear to be a 'mechanical' device, uses a communications technology that we are familiar with, and there's no reason to assume that it does. It's a fictional, alien probe, which is likely using a fictional, alien technology to communicate with the whales.

wizard_of_gore Premium member

You're describing fantasy fiction and not science fiction. The whales are not equipped with alien technology to send and receive, so it doesn't matter what technology the probe contains The movie makes a point of "playing" the sounds of whales and the sounds of the probe. Sounds, by definition, are vibrations of a medium - there is no medium here to carry the vibrations, and even if there were, they would have to be so powerful as to cause worldwide, catastrophic shock waves in order to reach.

ReRyRo

Star Trek does often dabble in fantasy under the guise of "too advanced for our puny minds." The probe's signal is not itself a sound but some kind of energy (or something) that can inexplicably drain power from starships, cause giant hurricanes, and produce a sound when it hits a medium. The probe presumably has sensors that can detect the effects of a whale call and extrapolate/ "hear" it much the way the Enterprise bridge screen can "see" across vast distances using sensor data.

TonyPH Premium member

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)

lionhead

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

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.

lionhead

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.

lionhead

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.

BaconIsMyBFF

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.

lionhead

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.

BaconIsMyBFF

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.

lionhead

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.

BaconIsMyBFF

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.

BaconIsMyBFF

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.

lionhead

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."

lionhead

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.

lionhead

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.

TonyPH

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.

lionhead

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.

lionhead

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.

lionhead

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.

kayelbe

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.

lionhead

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 Jan 2006

Alien (1979)

Corrected entry: Ripley's nosebleed: from 1:17:16 (chapter 14: 'A Confrontation with Ash' on the '99 DVD), Ripley's nose starts bleeding, eventually very noticeably. This is almost a full minute before Ash begins attacking her by throwing her twice, which might actually make it bleed. (01:17:15)

Correction: It's just an incidental nosebleed that can occur for any number of reasons like dehydration, blood pressure, etc. In addition to the other answers, it seems the film's purpose with the nosebleed is to contrast a sweaty, bleeding Ripley against Ash, who is totally dry aside from a strange drop of white fluid trickling down his face. The juxtaposition is a signal that yes, Ash is indeed "bleeding/ sweating" this white substance as a body fluid and it hasn't just dripped or spilled on him.

TonyPH Premium member

Correction: Actually, Ripley's nosebleed was from when they opened the airlock on the Alien and she and Parker were caught in the decompression. That scene obviously was never filmed but the nosebleed was in reference to it. Also, in a cut scene you see Ripley and Lambert talking with Parker over the intercom where he says the Alien is right next to the airlock, apparently somewhat fascinated with a blinking light on in the door.

Correction: This would only be an error if a later scene were intended to show the moment the bleeding is caused by some physical strike, but there's no such moment (and there is the chance that her first shoving match with Ash may have had her head striking his, but it's not a certainty). Still, nosebleeds are commonly triggered by stress in people prone to them. Ripley's nosebleed begins after she learns of the special order (crew expendable) and becomes extremely distraught- and after her physically tossing Ash around (causing his head cut that later drips). She marches off, and in the passageways she can then be seen with the nosebleed.

johnrosa

You're really rationalizing this. Ridley Scott did not make Ridley's nose bleed to show that she's stressed out. It's inexplicable, and was the result of something cut from the film. The presence of it in the film constitutes it as a mistake.

Accidents and unintended effects are not necessarily mistakes. The nosebleed may have been intended as one thing - a reference to another scene - but became something else by that other scene's absence: a detail that helps sell the realism of the moment precisely because it does not feel contrived. Because a random nosebleed that occurs at an inconvenient time whose cause is not immediately obvious is something most people have experienced at one time or another.

TonyPH Premium member

12th Apr 2005

Blade Runner (1982)

Corrected entry: File footage descriptions provided to police on escaped replicates Zora (snake lady) and Pris are reversed. Zora was an inefficient killer and Pris was. Also, a basic pleasure model (Zora, not Pris) would take a job as a sexual entertainer.

Correction: There is no mistake there. Zhora was smart enough to try and strangle Deckard with his tie, so as not to leave any physical evidence before dumping the body. Anyone could have strangled him, no one would suspect an exotic dancer/replicant. And Pris "A Basic Pleasure Model" was quite obvioulsy dressed as a prostitue and her idea of attacking Deckard is to do a cartwheel and gymnastic display.

Yep. To add, the only reason Zhora doesn't succeed in killing Deckard is because other people walk into the room. She is much more efficient in her attack than Pris. She's also very serious and cynical while Pris plays innocent and flirty. Zhora is also more of a Vegas showgirl or burlesque dancer which is quite a different job and skill set from being a prostitute, which to me is what "pleasure model" implies.

TonyPH Premium member

27th Aug 2001

Blade Runner (1982)

Correction: Sebastian's toys had the run of the place. Why couldn't it have been one of them?

It looks like one of them is holding a camera.

TonyPH Premium member

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.