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)
TonyPH
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
27th Aug 2001
Blade Runner (1982)
Corrected entry: As Deckard (Harrison Ford) stalks Batty (Rutger Hauer) in the building at the end, you see him walk through a room and briefly the shadow of two crew members (one is the director Ridley Scott) skims across the wall.
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.
1st Nov 2007
Blade Runner (1982)
Corrected entry: When Batty is in the phone booth shaking his hand, the nail stuck in his hand at the end of the movie is seen as he turns his hand. Also, someone's hand is visible on his right sholder.
Correction: This is not a mistake, but rather an artistic choice. Both of these short images repeat later in the film (Tyrell's apt and the final fight.) Scott was trying to portray some sort of android premonition or something.
They went so far as to alter these shots in the Final Cut to remove the thumb on Roy's shoulder and have the backgrounds better blend in with the phone booth. It really doesn't seem like these shots were ever meant to be a flash forward at all.
28th Mar 2021
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Plot hole: The aliens provide coordinates for a place to make a rendezvous with humans but do not specify a time. It's possible they're monitoring and will arrive when they see enough humans gathering at Devil's Tower, but the humans seem to expect the aliens to come more or less exactly when they actually do, somehow.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Scientists were prepared for the aliens and knew when and where they would arrive, as seen by the extensive complex built at Devil's Tower. However, as Claude Lacombe, the French scientist, speculates towards the end, hundreds of humans may have had the Devil's Tower image recently implanted in their minds, saying they were "invited" but never made the connection. Neery figured it out and was compelled to go there at that time. Neery was then allowed to join a group of trained volunteers that were already prepared to go on the ship, while the previous "abductees" were being returned to Earth.
The aliens had not given a time to meet. The scientists may be taking it on faith that the aliens will know that they've arrived at Devil's Tower and are ready, but the way the subject of timing is left unaddressed on screen feels like an oversight.
We don't know for certain if the scientists were given a specific time, but it appears they were, or at least a general window. The long-lost objects, like the ship and the military aircraft, suddenly showing up in the desert, is an indication the process has started. If humans were given the precise location where the alien ship would arrive (Devil's Tower), then, logically, the aliens would also communicate when. The scientists were communicating with the aliens using tonal sounds. Early on, the scientists received map coordinates through dish satellites as repeating pulses. They would likely receive time information the same way. As often happens in movies, this info may be something that got edited out of the film, causing an inconsistency.
This might be one of those edge cases. Under most circumstances I'd agree we could assume arrangements were made off-screen by virtue of the fact that the rendezvous occurs successfully in the first place; but in the context of this movie, in which any and all forms of contact with the aliens is treated as profound and significant, leaving it unaddressed (not even with a line of dialogue) comes off like a plot hole. I suppose we'll just have to let our fellow website readers decide.
3rd Sep 2004
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Does anybody know why in fact there is a large monster swimming around in the death star's trash compactor? Makes the scene more exciting, yes, but its existence on the space station just seems out of place.
Answer: The creature, a dianoga, stowed into the trash compactor and built a lair as it was being built and installed on the Death Star. Dianogas love habitats like swamps or sewers and are found to commonly inhabit such places.
The main question is why was it on a space station? I can't imagine that there have been other people thrown in the trash compactor so why would it be there.
It would not surprise me at all if someone had written an entire book explaining how the creature got there.
3rd Jun 2003
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991)
Corrected entry: The character of Valeris was originally slated to be Lt. Saavik. The filmmakers tried to get Kirstie Alley back, but found out that her stardom in "Cheers" now made her too expensive. It was then decided that Saavik as she was known would never betray the Federation, so Valeris was created. This explains Valeris' infatuation with whether Spock is lying, as her words were originally Saavik's, mirrored in "The Wrath of Khan" (when Spock tells her, "I exaggerated," after she accuses him, "You lied.").
Correction: First, Saavik was already recast with Robin Curtis for Star Trek III and IV, so Alley was barely an issue for this film. Second, the exchange you mention is not a reference to the earlier film, but to the long-standing stipulation that Vulcans, as a rule, do not lie, established early in the original 1960s TV series.
There's nothing incorrect about the entry. Valeris was indeed originally written to be Saavik and Nicholas Meyer did try to get Kirstie Alley back (he did not care for Robin Curtis' interpretation of the character). The dialogue about Spock's apparent lies works with Valeris, too, but as originally written they would have been references to their earlier conversation in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.
9th Jun 2018
Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
Corrected entry: V'Ger considers humanoids controlling the Enterprise as an infection, unnecessary like a virus. On the other hand Spock finds out that V'Ger has travelled the whole universe searching for answers. Why doesn't V'Ger know that biological units are building and commanding spaceships? V'Ger must have already met Breen, Hirogen, and thousand other biological astronauts.
Correction: V'Ger does know this, but still considers humans (or carbon units) to be inferior, even to the technology that they created. As far as other species, we do not know what V'Ger did to them.
If a virus told you that humans were created by viruses and in fact are controlled by them, you would find it hard to believe, too.
Ilia as the drone of V'Ger is asking what for the humans are needed on the enterprise. V'Ger doesn't seem to know the concept of biological units in space ships or has never wondered before even it must've seen this scenario many thousand times in every quadrant of the galaxy. OK V'Ger is a "child", but even the dumbest child could connect the lines I guess.
25th Oct 2004
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: Was it always Lucas' original plan to have Darth Vader be Luke's father?
Answer: The short, short answer to this is "Yes... from a certain point of view." The long answer is complicated and depends completely on what timeframe you mean by "always." If you're going back all the way to the early rough drafts of the early-mid 70s (which actually resemble Episode I more than they do the Star Wars of 1977), you'll find there's a cyborg father figure protagonist that makes a heroic sacrifice, and then another character that is a "black knight" villain that eventually turns to the side of good near the end. Just to make things more complicated, there is yet another character, a villain by the name of "Darth Vader" that is a human Imperial officer like Grand Moff Tarkin. It may be a stretch to count all that as "Darth Vader was always the father" but the pieces were all there, at least.
(1) Now the earliest explicit mention on any documented material that Darth Vader is Luke's father comes from notes Lucas made outlining the general story of the trilogy and its place in the larger Star Wars saga. These were found in the archives for The Empire Strikes Back, but they are undated and we don't know if they were written before Star Wars (1977) and carried forward, or if they were written afterward. These were found fairly recently (made public in 2010) and as far as I know Lucas has never commented publicly about them.
(3) One thing we know, at least, is that Lucas had come up with the idea of Darth Vader the father before starting work on The Empire Strikes Back. Something incredibly odd, though, is that the first draft written by Leigh Brackett does not feature the twist (and in fact introduces Anakin himself as a ghost); for a long time many fans took this as proof that Lucas hadn't thought of the idea at all by then, but after the series outline was discovered it was made apparent that Lucas simply hadn't told Brackett for some reason. Perhaps he wasn't sure yet that he wanted to go through with it, or maybe at that point he was thinking of revealing it in the third film. Either way, Lucas would write the second draft himself, and that's where the twist first appears in script form.
(2) Something that must be understood about Star Wars (1977) is that it was an ALTERNATIVE to his original plans of a saga. By then he didn't think it was realistic that he would be able to make a long series of many movies, so he came up with a "Plan B": he crammed the general story of the trilogy into one movie. So we know that when Star Wars (1977) was filming, Darth Vader was NOT Luke's father, because this one movie was IT, that was the whole story. But what we DON'T know, is whether that means Lucas had abandoned the idea of Vader being the father in order to simplify the story, or if Lucas simply hadn't thought of that at all just yet.
(2, cont.) On a side note, you can tell by watching Star Wars (1977) how it has condensed the story of the trilogy. The middle portion has the characters trying to escape capture from the Empire while one of them loses a duel with Darth Vader (like The Empire Strikes Back) and the third act is a final battle against the Death Star above a forest moon (like Return of the Jedi). The first act features a member of royalty on the run while a couple of protagonists find the main hero on a desert planet, resembling the original drafts and by extension Star Wars: Episode I. Because of this we've arguably never actually had a "pure" first chapter to the original trilogy, even though Lucas eventually had the film serve this purpose anyway.
Answer: Yes, however, he didn't want anyone to KNOW about it. In fact, the original script said "'Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father.' 'He told me enough... he told me YOU killed him!' 'No, Obi-Wan killed your father'" Even Hamill was only told the real line just before shooting, so his reaction is somewhat natural.
18th Nov 2020
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Question: What happened to Luke's hand after Vader cut it off?
Answer: It fell into the reactor shaft alongside his lightsaber, unrecoverable. It probably fell outside like Luke did and dropped into the clouds of the gas giant Bespin.
Well, what about the thing that fell after Luke landed on the satellite dish outside? Was that Luke's hand?
No, nothing as macabre as that. Probably a piece of cloth or something that fell out of his pocket. Or, possibly, his lightsaber. But I doubt they would have him watch his own hand fall.
I always assumed that was his blaster, falling out of the holster.
In the Legends continuity someone found Luke's severed hand and used it to create Luke's evil clone, known as Luuke.
Answer: In the books before Disney, the hand was recovered by an Ugnaught (the pig-like people in Cloud City) and was taken with his lightsaber to the Emperor's secret storehouse on the planet Wayland. It was later used (in the Thrawn trilogy) to create a clone of Luke.
23rd Jan 2003
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: It would have been impossible for the aliens to produce such a large army because of a limited number of hosts that can produce them. There was no indigenous life on the planet so there should only be as many aliens as there was colonists on the planet, which is about 150. It doesn't matter how many eggs the queen lays, they must have hosts to produce the alien creatures.
Correction: 150 is an army compared to 9 marines. Also the families would have brought animals such as dogs and cats and livestock to eat. This would further increase their amount of hosts.
Agreed, 150 is more than enough to account for all the aliens we see in the movie. It's really a testament to the film's direction and editing that so many people get the impression that there must be thousands of aliens.
8th Jan 2020
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Characters that are supposed to be blood relatives, but have no familial resemblance.
Correction: Blood relatives do not always resemble each other.
That's not really a "common mistake", though since it's never a mistake to have blood relatives that do not resemble each other.
I mostly agree. Family members often look too different to be biologically related. Even if an effort is made, for example, to have a son look like his father, some things don't sync - like a different face shape/bone structure or skin tone (not due to tanning). One example of father/son dissimilarities are in The War of the Worlds - the boy playing Tom Cruise's son has a completely different facial shape/structure. Regarding skin tone, in Boyhood the sister of Mason has a different skin tone than the rest of the family - and it stands out.
I'm probably a bit sensitive to this since my family members don't all have a strong resemblance to each other, but it's absolutely possible, especially if your family tree is diverse in genetics/ appearance. It happens more often than not in movies, but it's not a mistake. (And who's to say that in many of these cases people weren't adopted?).
13th Dec 2018
Common mistakes
Factual error: Characters, typically the hero, can crash through windows without so much as getting a cut on them.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Depending on the age of the window, that's the whole point. Safety glass is designed to break in a way to stop people getting hurt.
Not every window is made from safety glass. When was the last time you saw a movie where a main character crashed through a store window, office building window, house window, plate glass window, etc. and ended up getting shredded to ribbons?
You don't often see blood but items of clothing do get ripped. One example I can think of off the top of my head is The Last Stand where Arnie gets chucked through a glass door. His jacket gets rips on it.
For whatever it's worth, the one time in my life I had to break through a window in an emergency situation, it was definitely not safety glass and I got some fairly deep cuts even though I thought I'd cleared away the pieces. Also in spite of everything I made sure to smash it with an object because I knew there was no way I was just going to be able to leap through a solid pane of glass, and I suspect even if I did I'd just end up impaling myself on a huge shard.
10th Aug 2003
Alien (1979)
Corrected entry: Several scenes on the story boards and in the script did not make the final cut of the film. Some weren't even filmed at all. Some of these scenes included a sexual encounter between Dallas and Ripley, who have their moment spoiled in horror when Kane's corpse, which they ejected hours before, drifts in front of their view and bangs into the window. The other more controversial scene that was not even filmed, but only hinted at, was a 'rape' scene involving Lambert and the Alien. The Alien sliding its tail between Lambert's legs was originally intended to be the start of a bizarre sodomy/rape sequence, but director Ridley Scott thought better of it and decided not to film that scene. The only inclination of the alien sodomizing or raping Lambert left in the film is the fact that her corpse, which we only get a brief glimpse of hanging from the ceiling, is stark naked.
Correction: When Lambert was killed by the Alien you heard her on the intercom and the sounds she was making certainly sounded like she was being raped.
11th Oct 2016
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: After Anakin becomes Darth Vader, he seems ruthless, actually evil. "From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!" Is just one quote. That being the case, this movie makes it seem like Anakin knows that he's evil and wishes he wasn't. Basically, my question is, why didn't Anakin turn on Palpatine sooner? Or simply leave the Sith?
Answer: Darth: "Obi-Wan once thought as you do. You don't know the power of the dark side. I must obey my master." It's implied that the dark side is intoxicating, once you totally give in to the dark side it has a hold on you, and appeals to morality and rationalization are useless against your lust for its power. (On a symbolic level, the dark side is a metaphor for vice. Darth Vader is an addict and abusive parent. It's actually funny how many scenes still make sense if you replace "the dark side" with "the bottle" or similar).
If we bring the prequels into it, it's one of the criticisms of those films that they only make the question of how much Anakin is a "true believer" more confusing. But it stands to reason that at first Anakin may feel vindicated in his resentment toward the Jedi. Later on, Vader may not feel that as strongly, but by then his anger has turned toward himself for failing to save Padme. He may feel that a man as terrible as he does not deserve to be "rescued" from the dark side, leading to a feedback loop where he only gets further enamored with its power and does more evil things which causes him to hate himself even more, and so it goes.
Answer: Anakin was seduced by the emperor to think that the Jedi were evil. This was partly fueled by anger &fear, thinking Padme would die if Palpatine didn't help save her. After he turned to Darth Vader & joined the dark side, he eventually realised the true nature of the Emperor, but he was to weak to do anything about it. Darth Vader still wanted to rule the galaxy, but didn't want the emperor controlling everything. He just wanted to use Luke to help overthrow the emperor and take over the galaxy. It wasn't until he found out he had a daughter also, and saw Luke about to die by the hands of the emperor, that he realised that Luke was right & he needed to switch sides.
Vader was not just using Luke to kill the Emperor. He actually did want to rule the galaxy as father and son - if Luke would turn to the Dark Side, that is.
5th May 2018
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
Question: Who is Luke talking about when he covers up his hand and says that he has a promise to keep to an old friend? Who is the old friend?
Answer: Yoda. When he was departing for Cloud City to save his friends in the previous film, he promised Yoda that he would return to Dagobah to complete his training.
OK. But I thought he was talking about the holeish thing in his hand since he covered it up when he said it. I must have misunderstood it.
The hole in Luke's robotic hand reminds him that he got that robotic hand in the first place because he lost his duel with Darth Vader at Cloud City - a confrontation Yoda warned him he was not ready for.
19th Jan 2014
The Thing (1982)
Other mistake: When Doc uses a computer to watch/simulate dog cells being assimilated by a "thing" cell, we can see a single cell fusing with multiple dog cells to imitate them. This process would lead to the dog being digested until it remains only one cell, and not to the replacement of all of its cells by the imitators. (00:40:30 - 00:41:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The computer simulation isn't showing just one cell taking over an entire dog, but showing how the creature can get the genetic makeup of whatever it touches and replicate it perfectly.
I think it's fair to consider this a goof. John Carpenter states on the director's commentary his goal through this sequence was to demonstrate the life cycle of the Thing, and acknowledges that the visual isn't accurate for that purpose.
Pretty much the entire rest of the movie unfolds as though the simulation showcased the Thing spreading / multiplying: it's followed by text saying the entire human population could become "infected" after a certain amount of time; it's not until after this scene that anyone besides Blair is worried that one or more of them has been taken over. It's a valid movie mistake because the movie itself seems to assume the audience saw something different than what was actually shown.
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.
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