20th Jun 2016
Battle of the Bastards - S6-E9
Corrected entry: SPOILER: Rickon Stark gets set loose by Ramsay Bolton and told to run to his brother. He knows that arrows are being fired at him, but he still runs in a dead straight line, so of course he gets struck down. If he'd just zig-zagged a bit he'd have been near-impossible to hit.
18th Nov 2003
Corrected entry: In 2020 they talk about the first 20-megaton explosion to create the lunar colony. Then we find out that these blasts have knocked the moon off its orbit causing it to break up. However even a single moderately sized crater on the moon would have been created by a blast an order of magnitude greater then this. How could such small blasts knock the moon out of its orbit while countless meteor impacts have had no effect?
Correction: For the moon to be knocked out of orbit, an object the same size and density would have to strike the moon and at relatively the same speed in the opposite direction. Even if the largest asteroid in our solar system struck the moon (Ceres which is almost 600 miles wide), the moon wouldn't be knocked out of orbit or even destroyed. As to all the comments about mining the moon to reduce its mass, even with unknown future technology, it's a ridiculous assumption. To reduce the mass of the moon by 100th of 1% (0.01%) you would have to remove about 7.35 quadrillion tons, so not trillions. A 1% reduction in mass would require 7.35 sextillion tons removed (not that a 1% reduction in mass would result in the moon being knocked out of orbit), which is over a quintillion tons a day for 7 years straight (1,000 mining facilities each mining out 30 billion tons a second, and currently we don't even mine 16 billion tons on Earth in one year). And a lighter moon would cause the moon to be pulled closer to Earth, not further away. Certainly a movie set in the future can have moon be out of orbit without creating a mistake. But to claim it was from blasting from 20-megaton explosions and mining isn't plausible due to the sheer size of the moon. Remember, the moon is bigger than Pluto.
Correction: All we hear is that the FIRST blast was a 20-megaton explosion, and then later, that the attempts to colonize the moon had knocked it out of orbit. We have NO idea what went on between the year 2030 and 2037, and to say that the moon's orbit was disrupted by 20-megaton blasts is an assumption, nothing more.
Its impossible. A bomb 10,000 times the strength wouldn't do a damn thing to the moon. Not even hundreds of them.
Correction: The mention of "blasting" was associated with lunar mining. Presumably, much of the mined lunar material was being freighted away from the Moon (perhaps and probably back to Earth, but also to other destinations), thereby depleting the Moon's mass over time. We know today that the Moon is gradually moving away from the Earth already under its current mass. Removing the Moon's mass gradually would affect its gravitational relationship to the Earth, eventually leading to the Moon's breakup due to gravitational tidal forces. The "blasting" would have only been the beginning of the calamity.
Sounds ridiculous. Got any idea how much mass they would need to remove from the moon before it would actually affect its orbit? trillions of tons. You need such a big operation of constant removal of huge amounts of material from the moon, for centuries. Not likely. Also, the craters on the moon are caused by meteorites that slammed into it with the power of hundreds if not thousands of megatons of TNT, for billions of years.
Why ridiculous? You have no idea how much material was removed, nor do you have any idea what a future civilization is capable of removing.
They would have to be removing trillions of tons of material from the moon for decades. In 7 years you can't remove enough mass from the moon to affect its orbit causing it to break up, not unless you have Superman doing the work.
Again, you have no idea of a future civilization's mining capabilities.
26th Feb 2018
Corrected entry: Will could've easily seen Elizabeth more than once every ten years, by walking with his feet in buckets, which Davy Jones did.
Correction: Technically, yes, he could have, but doing so would have been extremely dangerous. Jones isn't merely incapable of setting foot on dry land, it's fatal for him to do so. Will would risk death attempting this if he should lose his balance while trying to walk thus encumbered.
Correction: Would be kinda stupid to be walking across a beach in buckets, just to see your wife. Davey Jones was pretty much imprisoned when he was standing in that bucket. However they made it work it was only for the negotiations and wouldn't be exactly practical to do when visiting, standing there on the beach in a bucket, even going from bucket to bucket. Will wanted to see his wife, but at the same time wanted to do his job, he wasn't desperate.
13th May 2016
Corrected entry: Right after the second engine goes down on the shield Helicarrier, the altitude reading on Iron Man's HUD shows just over 15,000 feet for the altitude. A short time later, even though the helicarrier has been falling since the engine went down, the altitude on the helicarrier's bridge shows the helicarrier falling through 18,000 feet.
Correction: 2 independent systems showing different values for altitude is not a continuity mistake, it merely shows that the systems are not calibrated for the same ground level or, more likely, that both systems don't operate under the same physical conditions. E.g. Helicarrier in "normal" air vs Iron Man inside an engine that produces heat and pressure changes while moving, thereby falsifying his readings.
Suggesting Iron Man's suit is giving falsified readings because of pressure and heat is ridiculous. Iron Man's suit is controlled by an advanced AI, you really think it wouldn't notice strange readings?
Just because you notice a strange reading does not mean that you can correct it on the fly. Or, as suggested, Iron Man has simply calibrated his altimeter for a wrong/virtual ground level as a signal for him to get out of there in case his plan fails. The main point of my suggested correction is that the Helicarrier and the suit are two independent systems that do not necessarily need to show the same values and the views of Suit's HUD in them self are consistent insofar as that the altitude drops from 15000+ to 13000+.
You're right. 2 independent altitude meters can give separate altitudes. The correction is solid.
20th Feb 2018
Corrected entry: The big burly guy with the sweater has a heart attack. When his chest is opened it is soon discovered that he has been assimilated, meaning he was no longer human at that point and would not have had a heart attack.
Correction: The alien entity imitating Vance Norris is faking a heart attack. Vance Norris was replaced by the alien a long time ago.
He definitely isn't faking. He winces from chest pains while he is in a room all by himself, just after he looks out the window and yells "Hey you guys! Come here!" The implication is, like Blair said, when the thing takes over someone it copies them perfectly and also copied Norris' bad heart. It also wouldn't make any sense for him to fake a heart attack at that moment because it caused him to reveal himself to everyone all at once and be killed.
It doesn't take over their bad traits, no need to do that, every single cell of the organism has its own sense of survival, a heart attack wouldn't threaten it. It did fake a heart attack, it's not human, it doesn't use a heart. MacReady was becoming a threat to its survival with the dynamite - the thing wanted to create chaos, and in that way kill them all and eliminate the threat. It lured people close, like the doctor, so he could attack. Besides, it had already copied itself, it was also Palmer.
The chest pains started before Macready came into the building. He definitely wasn't faking a heart attack, he was actually having one. The creature makes a perfect copy of the organism it takes over and because Norris had a bad heart, it also had a bad heart. The creature only reveals itself when it's alone or it has to defend itself. Because the doctor was hurting it with the defibrillator, it was forced to reveal itself.
So you are saying that if the creature had a heart attack alone in a room it would actually die? Why would an actual heart attack threaten a thing that is made up of individual cells that have their own survival instincts? This fact was only revealed after the incident. No, the heart attack wasn't real, it isn't human.
No, I'm not saying the creature would or even could die of a heart attack. I'm saying that the heart attack wasn't faked because the creature made a perfect copy of Norris, including his bad heart. This is all explained after the dog-thing is examined. It has internal organs that look and work just like the creatures it copies. It wouldn't need to fake a heart attack to get people to come closer to it anyway. It can just walk up to anybody it wants to attack. For the entire movie, the creature lies in wait, attacking one person at a time unless it absolutely has no other choice but to defend itself.
I know it's the official explanation given, but I just don't buy it the creature would fail its hidden state so utterly by going into cardiac arrest and drawing attention to itself like that even though every single cell has it own survival instincts. I still say it was the threat of the dynamite, to create confusion. They do think individually or else the dynamite would have worked in it's favor even. It just panicked and did it on purpose.
I think what the movie is saying is that even though each individual cell wants to protect itself, it's still beholden to what particular type of cell it is. So if it's a copy of an eye cell of someone who has bad eyesight, the thing will still have bad eyesight. It didn't know anything about the dynamite when it started having chest pains, that was before Macready even came in.
6th Feb 2018
Corrected entry: The entire scene with the rebel bombers is ridiculous. First, they are incredibly slow, ponderous craft that are impractical in the extreme. Their slowness also makes no sense, as there are far larger, more massive ships that move at relatively high velocities, so their size/mass isn't enough. Second, the idea of "dropping bombs" on a ship in space violates the laws of physics. They are not near enough a gravity well to exert the force needed to pull the bombs downward. The ships themselves cannot exert such a field, no matter how big they are. If they did, ALL craft flying by them would be pulled toward or into them, and the people on board would not be able to move due to the crushing gravity field. The bombs are not shown to be pushed out in any way, and in fact Poe keeps yelling to drop the bombs. But instead they open the bomb-bay doors as if in a WWII plane, and when the bombs are released they fall to the ship as they would above a planet.
Correction: The bombers move slowly to be able to accurately drop the bombs without disrupting the drop, much like real-life bombers do, after which the writers adapted these ships, it doesn't mean they work like real life bombers, but the idea is taken and thus the limitations are similar but for different reasons that go unexplained. Unless you have schematics of the bombers you have no actual argument about how they should operate. Also, ships that size do have a gravitational field. Ships close-by would be pulled closer but they have engines that prevent them from doing that. Future technology allows for the people inside the ships to move around freely because of inertial dampers and artificial gravity. There is no point in using real-life physics to contradict actions in a science fiction movie involving huge spaceships, FTL drives, lightsabers and death stars. The laws of physics work differently in this universe.
20th Dec 2017
Corrected entry: During the bombardment of the republic ships by the first order, the shots have a flight pattern that looks very much like a balistic curve. There is no gravity source strong enough anywhere nearby to account for this curve.
Correction: This is a fictional technology set in a fictional universe. We do not know the type of energy the weapon uses, therefore we can't say how it should or should not behave. Also, the ships are enormous, and therefore have their own gravitational effect due to their mass, which could account for this.
Correction: While the first is a possibility, that in some way they are able to have some kind of guided laser-torpedo something or other, but the gravity explanation is impossible. If it's guided energy, it would take gravitational fields on the order of massive planets and above to even start to bend the light. These ships are not that massive. If you want to use the "but they have artificial gravity" argument, if it were that powerful a field to affect light and quasi-light objects as is proposed, especially at those distances, then it would absolutely impossible for anyone to move within the ship - they would be either squashed completely flat or rendered immobile due to the sheer power of the field. The best explanation is that the film makers simply wanted to be able to show the guns hitting in a way that wasn't simply straight-line lasers, and hoped that people would just think it was cool.
It's established in the Star Wars universe that the weapons are not light, but rather charged gas and plasma.
Starships so large have something called "inertia dampers" which counter the massive gravitational forces the ship endures for anyone inside it.
26th Jan 2018
Corrected entry: McGregor's Scottish character says he paid $5 million for his insurance policy. The doctor tells his investors that he will have to destroy $200 million worth of product to be safe. That converts to a mere 40 clones. Obviously there were far more than that slated to be destroyed.
Correction: It's a certainty that the insurance policies are not being sold "at cost." The customer may have paid the company $5,000,000, but that doesn't mean it costs the company $5,000,000 to produce a clone. The doctor is talking about the cost to replace that inventory, not how much those policies are worth.
Exactly, it's probably closer to 200 clones.
21st Jan 2018
Factual error: When they first power-up the Stargate in the military facility (using Jackson's decryption), the thing surges to life, and electrical sparks spray out of overloaded connections all around the control room. This could only happen if there were no fuses or electrical breakers in the military's control system, which is a ridiculous notion for such advanced military technology. In real life, a powerful overload situation would instantly burn out fuses and trip breakers and the whole system would simply go dead (there would be no sparks). Showers of sparks are a common error in many science fiction and space fantasy films dating back many decades.
Suggested correction: If there would be breakers and fuses then yes, the system would simply go dead and then they would have nothing. They intentionally let the system nearly overload because without power they wouldn't be able to finish the sequence.
No, that's not the way sophisticated (and expensive) electronic technology works. If you have sparks spraying out of electrical connectors, that means you're melting down millions and millions of dollars of hardware. No technician or electrician or even a first-year auto mechanic would intentionally design and hardwire an electrical system without fuses and/or breakers.
They're dealing with Ancient technology. It's quiet possible that such an advanced piece of technology as a Stargate could cause powerful arcs of electricity along lines separated even by tripped breakers.
Ancient technology does not override electrical physics. Modern electrical equipment is protected with fuses and breakers for a reason. If the Stargate technology overrode the parameters of the modern equipment, it would melt down the modern components being protected by the fuses and breakers. Either way, the whole system would shut down.
21st Jan 2018
Corrected entry: The gate appears to have about 40 symbols on it, and they already had the first 6 of the 7 needed for the sequence. After dialing the first 6, Catherine said that was as far as they had ever gotten, so we know they had dialed the first 6 before. Except they didn't need Jackson to figure out the riddle since all they had to do was try each of the remaining symbols as the seventh, one by one, until they found the one that worked. So with a maximum of about 40 tries they would have found it a long time ago, all without Jackson's help.
Correction: The project is in military hands and its quite possible the military decided not to experiment further with the device before they knew for sure they got the correct symbol, considering the shaking that already starts when the 6th symbol is locked. Its possible that dialing it is too dangerous to try 40 times because it endangers the facility or the device itself.
21st Jan 2018
Plot hole: George Lebay says that his brother died "6 weeks ago" inside Christine and that's why he's selling it. Later that evening after Arnie leaves his house and goes to Darnell's, Will Darnell says he "knew a guy who owned a car like that" and "the bastard killed himself in it." If it's only been 6 weeks since his death, shouldn't Darnell have recognized the car? It's not like there were lots of red Plymouth Furies (custom order color) running around the small town, let alone the USA, even in 1978. (Also considering how production even had a hard time finding them for the movie).
Suggested correction: He says he knew a guy with a car like that. It doesn't have to be the same colour or even the same generation. Just a Plymouth Fury.
Darnell basically said he knew THE brother of Lebay, not just some guy who owned a similar car. Darnell described Lebay's brother based on the story. Again, it was him, not just some other guy.
11th Jan 2018
Corrected entry: Peter Quill uses an old Mattel electronic football game that he has modified to be some sort of tracking/radar device. Where did he get it? When he was abducted, all he has was his Walkman and mix tapes. Not only that, but with access to advanced technology, why would he even need such a device?
Correction: You know, just because Starlord does some crazy stuff to a device to make it do something else than it was originally intended for without it actually making sense does not make it a plot hole. He just made the decision to do that, and it was possible to do it. Its not a mistake at all. He also could have gotten the device from anywhere, he's been around. Some other aliens could have stolen things from Earth and he bought it from them (or stole it).
Or he had it in his backpack at the time when he was abducted, since he did have a backpack.
11th Jan 2018
Corrected entry: Before he dies, Taserface sends the Sovereign the coordinates for Yondu's ship before the bulk of it explodes. But, they then do over 700 jumps to get to Ego's planet. How could the Sovereign possibly track them there?
Correction: They had the coordinates for the ship, so presumably they could lock on and track it or be able to find it with deep-space scans.
12th Jan 2004
Corrected entry: Why did Costner's character have to use that timer thing to gauge how long he is underwater? He has gills so he should be able to breathe underwater therefore he wouldn't have to limit his exploring time so much.
Correction: The timer was to trigger the winch to pull up all the loot.
Correction: My theory on this is so he can make sure his awesome boat isn't left unattended for too long but that's just my thoughts.
Correction: Considering how scarce fresh water is and how easy it is to desalinate seawater, there could be chemicals in the sea after the war. Maybe the he sets the timer because he knows that staying down much longer will make him sick.
Correction: Could be he was timing for the sleeping cycle of the large sea creatures roaming the oceans. He doesn't want to be caught so deep when those things show up.
1st Jan 2018
Corrected entry: The atmosphere of Mars is so cold that anyone who went outside without a spacesuit would freeze instantly.
Correction: In the summer when the sun is up the surface temperature of Mars could be as high as 35° Celsius. So no, you won't always freeze instantly.
Correction: Mars' atmosphere is almost like space, 100 times less dense than Earth's atmosphere. It is a myth that space is "cold", even when the local temperature is well below freezing. When absent most matter, heat loss is much slower. Your principal means of heat loss will be through radiation (which humans have not evolved to do - we principally cool through evaporation and convection). Because it has almost no atmosphere to trap heat with, the feeling of "cold air" that you might expect simply isn't as strong on Mars. (On the other hand, rapid expansion of gas causes rapid cooling. The gigantic fusion reactor probably *would* freeze them, as the released oxygen would be utterly cryonic.) Though the dark side of Mars is quite a bit cooler than the dark side of the moon, it is still not nearly enough to freeze instantly. You would not freeze instantly even on Earth in -60 degree weather either (although it would be incredibly painful).
23rd Jun 2017
Projections - S2-E3
Corrected entry: In the beginning, when the doctor is activated, he immediately asks who activated him. The computer tells him he was activated when a red alert was initiated. But then he finds out no one is on board, so there was no one to initiate the red alert at that moment. He should have been activated much earlier, when the crew was still on board and under red alert, even in a simulation.
Correction: But red alerts don't always have to be activated by a crew member, they can be automated warnings.
13th Jul 2017
Corrected entry: When Ripley and the others are trying to figure out what they are dealing with Ripley suggests something is laying these eggs since there must be over 100. But she knows there already are hundreds if not thousands of these eggs so there is no reason to assume something is laying new ones. (01:34:40 - 01:35:15)
Correction: Ripley is running through the logic and realizing there is something they don't yet understand about the alien's life cycle: where the eggs come from. Even if they happen to be the same eggs from the derelict ship, the eggs had to have been created at some point, by something. But how? What is this process? She may have started out talking about how the specific colonists were taken over, but by the time she asks "who's laying these eggs," she's asking about the concept, in general. Because unless the creatures were specifically bio-engineered not to be able to, they almost certainly have the ability to create more eggs.
Correction: That's exactly what she means. She's saying something must've laid the eggs, and will likely continue to lay more.
But there is no reason for her to say there must be a queen lying these eggs, she knows there are eggs, there have been eggs there for decades.
In Alien, she doesn't know that though. She and the rest of the crew don't know what they've seen and what they're up against. Yes, she knows it's an alien but that's it.
She knows there are eggs from experiences in Alien where the eggs are discovered in the alien spaceship. Yet we don't see a queen alien. In Aliens, they aren't in the alien spaceship, they're in the atmosphere processing plant. Yes they're both on the same planet but do you think the eggs walked from one location to another? There must be something laying new eggs which Ripley hasn't yet seen.
My idea is that either the colonists or the xenomorphs themselves brought the eggs over to the colony. Perfectly logical if there is no queen. Sure it's also logical to think there is a queen, as movie viewers, but my point is there is no reason for Ripley to think something is lying these eggs whilst she knows there already were thousands of eggs.
Ripley is making the (correct) assumption that because the colonists are being taken deeper into the colony, and that the aliens have built a hive in the colony itself; that the eggs found there were laid there. If the hive had been built inside the derelict spacecraft, then Ripley likely wouldn't have made that assumption.
But why not think the aliens had taken the eggs from the derelict craft and taken them closer to the incubators, thus inside the colony? I just think it's far-fetched she immediately starts talking about a possible queen whilst there is hardly any reason to do so, where did the queen come from supposedly? All they know is some people from the colony brought aliens inside them into the colony and then all hell broke loose. Her assumption is nothing more than to help the plot along.
I don't think her assumption is far fetched at all. She assumes that the eggs must have been laid by something; which is logical. She then assumes the thing that laid the eggs is continuing to do so; which is also logical. Where the queen came from in never addressed in Ripley's conversation with Bishop. The two are merely speculating that there must an alien lying eggs and it must be something they haven't seen yet. It's quite a bit of a leap to think that the aliens somehow know that there are additional eggs miles away from the colony and they should go get them and bring them back. This borders on clairvoyance. It is much more logical, based on what the characters know and see, that the eggs in the colony were laid there.
But those eggs in the derelict ship have been lying there for an eternity, even if you would only count the amount of time Ripley has been asleep since she encountered them, no reason to think at all new eggs have been laid, no reason. Thousands of eggs were inside the derelict ship, the colonists were exposed to the aliens through those eggs, brought back to their colony inside themselves (they didn't bring eggs). It's ridiculous to think something then came, a queen, and nested inside the colony, unless a queen was brought along by the colonists, but Ripley and nobody in general have any idea how the aliens reproduce. It's more logical to think the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed. That's more of my point, the name "Queen" being used. That's what borders on clairvoyance. We know the Aliens have extrasensory perception (as shown in this movie) so them being able to sense the eggs that far away is a lot more believable to me.
I'm struggling with understanding your reasoning for why it is so unbelievable that Ripley and Bishop deduce that something is lying the eggs. Their explanation doesn't come anywhere close to clairvoyance. They make a logical guess that eggs are laid. They deduced, along with Hudson, that the creatures behaved in a similar fashion to ants or bees. That would mean logically a queen is lying the eggs. Once again, where the queen "came from" is never addressed in their conversation because it is irrelevant. The characters have much more than a general idea of how the creatures reproduce, they know everything pertinent except where exactly the eggs come from. I'm not understanding why you say it to be more logical that "the aliens can reproduce on their own, not that a queen is needed." If you are saying it to be more logical to think of the aliens as closer to chickens than ants (i.e., each creature lays it's own eggs), that doesn't make sense because they are basing their "ants" theory on the presence of a hive.
Well all right they may have guessed how the aliens behave and reproduce correctly, they did see all colonists together and probably incubated, a nest, fine. To me its all about the idea Ripley starts talking about a queen being down there from the fact there are over 100 eggs down there. Again, she knows there are thousands of eggs on the derelict ship already. What we know doesn't work for Ripley who knows nothing about those things. They aren't even sure how the aliens got to the colony and Ripley never mentions the derelict ship that had thousands of eggs again. For all she knows the colonists had already taken eggs from the ship back to the colony, why not think that's what going on? But she immediately jumps to the queen theory, which helps her later on.
Ripley mentions the derelict and the thousands of eggs both in the inquest and again on the Sulaco, both prior to the mission starting. Once they arrive on the planet and discover the hive they deduce that it might work like an ant colony or bee hive. Ripley questions "So what's lying these eggs?" to which Bishop responds "It must be something we haven't seen yet." Hudson is the first to suggest a possible queen. This conversation doesn't help Ripley later on in the movie. She literally just runs into the queen's chamber completely by accident. The conversation is just there to plant an idea in the audience's mind that there is an alien queen. You are arguing that based on what the characters know, they should have come to an incorrect conclusion (the aliens are taking eggs from the derelict back to the colony) rather than the correct one, if they came to any conclusion at all. You also say that "what we know" doesn't apply to what Ripley knows about the creatures, except that isn't true at all. At this point, Ripley knows everything about the aliens that the audience knows. Coming up with the idea that "these things built a hive like bees do. I wonder if that means they have a queen like bees and ants do?" is completely rational.
Let's agree to disagree then. What we know as the audience is that some colonists went to the derelict ship and brought back aliens inside them, Ripley and the marines don't know that as contact was lost and Newt isn't telling anything. Where do the eggs come from? The derelict ship should be the first idea, not that something is lying them, inside the colony even. Sure something once has laid them but that could have been thousands of years ago, where would a queen come from? All this, no logical reason to assume there is a queen. That's my opinion and why I posted the mistake.
We cannot agree to disagree because your theory is incorrect. It is safe to say that Ripley would logically deduce that neither the colonists nor the Aliens are capable of bringing 150 eggs hundreds of miles back to the derelict. It not possible. And as we see, the eggs are freshly laid, glistening wet. The most logical explanation is that a Queen was birthed from one of the colonists, as later happened to Ripley herself in "Alien 3."
If the colonists didn't bring eggs back how and why did they get facehuggers into the containment tanks and had time to study them? They just happen to have caught some? If they were that much into a crisis they wouldn't have wasted time examining them. No, they brought eggs back to study them, everything was going well until some got loose and escaped underneath the processing station, including a queen. Ripley never saw the eggs amount in the colony and the old ones looked just as "fresh."
If they brought back eggs, where were they? All we saw were the facehugger specimens. Surely Cameron would have shown us eggs in addition to them. He doesn't miss details like that. As such, the two live ones were "surgically removed before embryo implantation." Remember? The dead ones were from colonist rescuers answering Newt's family's mayday call. No way did they try to bring back the eggs without having gotten inundated first. Come on man.
It's not even the point. My point was always the use of the word Queen and Ripley's blind assumption the eggs were being laid fresh.
Again, that was the logical conclusion, not someone transferring dozens of eggs hundreds of miles from the derelict to the colony. Why would the colonists waste time doing that? Put yourself in Ripley's head for a moment. You don't really believe that in all that was going down that she'd logically conclude that someone, whether it be human or alien, would travel back and forth hundreds of miles to the derelict and bring eggs, do you? Neither did Cameron.
Note that when this scene starts the characters' discussion has been going on in circles for quite some time (much like this thread!). Ripley recaps what they've deduced so far ("let's go over it again") in the present tense, describing what appears to be an ongoing reproductive cycle (which if correct would render the derelict's eggs kind of moot) and when it hits a blank she prompts for suggestions. These aren't "blind assumptions"-they're testing theories and drawing tentative conclusions.
A Queen was obviously brought along by the colonists, as Ripley was impregnated herself by one in "Alien 3."
I never denied there was a queen brought back. But certainly not in that one facehugger that got stuck to Newt's dad's face. They brought back more. They had to, they must have contained the first one.
Obviously they did bring back more. Rescuers to Newt's family were inundated with facehuggers. Two were removed surgically before embryo implantation. The other three, which may or may not have included Newt's father, successfully implanted their embryos. One of which was obviously a Queen.
I find the theory that the aliens travelled hundreds of miles out to the derelict to fetch over 150 eggs to be far-fetched. Obviously Ripley logically deduced, based on the fact that there was a hive in the processing station, that there was something laying eggs.
The colonists were told by the company to find the derelict ship and bring back eggs to study, they were told, and they had plenty of time to get a lot of eggs before things went wrong for them. Newt's dad was just an incident, they continued their research and brought more and more eggs over. Therefore there is no reason for Ripley to think those eggs are freshly made.
Nope. Simpson, in the Special Edition, was told by Burke to investigate a grid reference. No explanation. Newt's family investigates and her father is facehugged. A rescue team comes to them and several members get facehugged as well. No eggs are transferred. The Aliens, including the Queen, are borne of these colonists and the Queen lays the eggs. Period. There is every reason for Ripley to think those eggs are freshly made. I don't know where you get these crazy ideas but you are dead wrong.
So you are telling me the people rescuing Newt's family were stupid enough to enter the ship as well and get facehugged just like Newt's dad did? And then more rescuers came to rescue these new schmucks? That's even more stupid.
Stupid people do stupid things. Ever read a story of how someone goes in a manhole and is overcome by carbon monoxide or something similar? They rarely find just the one body, but usually the one or two people who go in to "rescue" the first victim.
I've got no problem with stupid people doing stupid things. I just don't know what's the problem with my theory, if it's plausible. Again, it's not even the point of my problem with the scene in question.
Newt's parents did a stupid thing too, as did Kane. Otherwise we wouldn't have a movie. It's that your theory is implausible, period. The derelict served its purpose in the story and was no longer a concern to Ripley. She logically concluded that the hive eggs were being laid by someone or something. Surely no-one else was going back into the derelict to bring back eggs after what happened. Lesson learned. Occam's razor: all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
6th Nov 2017
Factual error: When Indy and Marcus first arrive in Venice on the boat the dock they alight on to has tactile pavers (for the visually impaired) installed on the platform. These weren't invented until 1965, some 25+ years after the scene takes place.
Suggested correction: One piece of the pier looking different doesn't mean that is meant for blind people, could be just a repair, or decorative, or a coincidence, could be anything.
You can see it is a tactile paver as it has the raised spots.
4th Nov 2017
Corrected entry: When Malcolm, Sarah, Nick and Malcolm's daughter have started going through the grassed area, where the crew before got attacked by the raptors, the raptors make a hunting noise, and Malcolm automatically recognizes it, but how could he when he never heard that noise before in the previous movie? The only noise he heard was when the raptors were feeding, which was a different noise all together.
Correction: He doesn't say he recognizes the velociraptor sounds, he just hears something and realises they are in predator territory. It's not a plot hole for Ian to recognize a dangerous situation.
He does, he says "raptors" to the others then they run.
Actually he says "Go, as fast as you can. Go." Nothing about raptors.
2nd Nov 2017
Revealing mistake: During the brief firefight in the mess hall, Distephano is disarmed and drops to the floor. After the firefight, he surrenders and stands up with his hands behind his head. The same shot of him standing up is reused in the security footage Gediman watches from the control room seconds later. (00:39:05)
Suggested correction: There could be a delay of several seconds in the footage, its probably a really outdated security system.
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: Rickon is a young child and scared. It would be perfectly normal for him not to realise that zig-zagging would help him be more elusive. Also, zig-zagging is no guarantee that he still would not be hit by a random arrow.
ctown28 ★
Next to that it would slow him down and he might trip and fall.
lionhead