"Double Jeopardy" She was correct in her use of the clause. She was convicted of murdering her husband, Nick, and as since she was already specifically convicted of his murder. The understanding of this being " how do you convict someone for killing a person who is already legally dead and that you have already sentenced for that murder?" She would likely have her parole revoked and returned to jail, but she would get out again in a few years.
The double jeopardy rule states that if you've been tried for a specific instance of a crime and that trial arrived at a verdict, you cannot be tried again for the same instance of that offense. Even that has limits. If you are convicted and the verdict is set aside on appeal, the prosecutor can try the case again. If, on appeal, the verdict is reversed, the prosecutor cannot. In this case she would be accused of a separate instance of murder. The protagonist could argue at sentencing that she had already served a prison sentence for killing that same individual, and this would be very likely to weigh in her favor, but the double jeopardy rule itself would not apply.
You are convicted for a crime/event not a specific victim. Otherwise bank robbers could rob the same bank again after getting out of prison or the same abusive spouse couldn't get arrested twice. There are also many other things a prosecutor could charge her with: murder in the first, second, third degree, manslaughter first and second degree, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, assault, adult with intent to unite, countless laws go into effect if something is done in furtherance of a crime, state level and federal level court cases are different too....etc
That is not correct. The law states that you cannot be tried of a specific instance of a crime twice. Example: I am on trial for theft. The case goes to court and I'm found to be innocent. Later, evidence is revealed that proves 100% that I did in fact steal. Too bad. I was already tried for that instance of theft. That's the double jeopardy law. What it is not is I am tried for stealing and found guilty, but it's later proven I didn't steal so I can now go steal for real and not be convicted which is the logic applied in the movie.
She could be charged by the state of Louisiana of murder however what time of murder we don't know and it is very likely that a jury wouldn't convict due to the circumstances and that she would be sent back for a perol violation before being reunited with her son and get all her dead husband's money. Now it would have been smarter for her to not kill him because he would have been sent to jail.
@thehomeschoolinglibrarian I am sure they would try, but very unlikely to get anywhere. It would be difficult to get an indictment against her for killing someone who is legally dead and for which she has currently serving a sentence. Parole violation certainly, send her back, but she is out again in 2 years after public pressure.
How does that explain the first movie, tho? It's isolated in a vehicle traveling through space. Wouldn't the need be to have a queen in order for a hive to exist?
@@oscarsantiago1038 That could be explained as some form of danger/panic interpreted by the the Xenomorph as the ship moves away from the hive and it can no longer sense the queen, thus bursting free sooner.
@@oscarsantiago1038 sadly with the disregarded plot lines don't make continuity between Alien and Aliens. As in the delete scene you see Brett is being turned into a cocoon with Dallas on the wall. So I can't give you the cannon explanation but Alien does throw a wrench in a bunch of the lore
@@topnotchvariable Deleted scenes aren't canon. Even in the special edition where Dallas cocooned on the wall is put back in, the egg's cropped out so it doesn't contradict Aliens.
Eating after midnight does not cause Mogwai to pop out of Gizmo’s back - that’s water. Eating after midnight causes Mogwai to enter a cocoon state and metamorphose into Gremlins. I also took the “Don’t feed after midnight” rule to mean you can’t feed them between midnight and 1200 noon.
Signs: There's a strong theory that the aliens are in fact demons, and the water in the ex preacher's home had been blessed and was therefore holy water, able to harm the demons.
@rmdodsonbills * the character the o.p. mentioned was a steer, i know what a bull is. Steer is what o.p. meant by male cow. But who said anything about udders? Edit: You win, I just came to the conclusion that cow IMPLIES udders. Good form.
My favorite exception to the superhero "no kill" rule: Wonder Woman. She's a warrior. She has no qualms at all about killing her enemies, if she thinks they deserve it. This has actually caused tension with Superman and/or Batman several times in various comic book and cartoon versions of the Justice League, which makes for interesting stories.
She's super strong. In most cases, she doesnt have to kill them, she can just incapacitate them and leave them disabled for the cops so if she really DOES have to take a life, its because the enemy is just too dangerous to keep alive. It makes sense.
The Batman example is particularly silly, given that his various vehicles are equipped with machine guns and rockets! It also doesn't make any sense, given how counter-productive the rule is - as well explored, though without a satisfactory conclusion, in _Batman: Under the Red Hood_ . Also, as pointed out in the greatest Batman film of all time, _The Lego Batman Movie_ , no matter how often Batman keeps beating and imprisoning his various enemies, they just keep escaping and coming back, hence causing the deaths of innumerable innocent people!
@@anthonyalles1833 In the comics, Batman doesn't have those weapons on the vehicles. That was actually the biggest complaint that many people had about the 1988 Batman movie.
The way the third rule is written, technically, a Mogwai can only eat up until 1159pm the day he is born. The rule should have been Don't feed them between sunset and sunrise.
Whilst that would've been better, logically speaking, the plot requires that Billy accidentally feeds them after midnight once Spike sabotages his alarm clock. But difficult to do that if he checked outside for sunset...
@@Dimetropteryx based on the theory I heard, the person brought up a lot of good points so I don’t think it’s any dumber than “intelligent aliens travel to planet that’s 70% their weakness”
Lawyer here, what the double jeopardy clause prevents is not conviction, but trial. There’s a lot of technicalities and exceptions involved but basically once you are tried once, you can’t be tried again
The stupidity of the movie Double Jeopardy is easy to explain as the advice comes from a self taught jailhouse lawyer. Someone with no actual legal education trying to piece make sense of legal jargon in an attempt to get themselves out of jail misunderstanding what they read. Just look at the legal sounding word salad of SovCits for examples of this.
@@aaronworthing1023 I imagine so, but in any case, the main circumstance where it matters is when someone is acquitted. Who convicts someone and then keeps trying them? That's like losing something, finding it, and then continuing to search.
X-Men aging - What you have to understand about the prequels is that the studio desperately wanted to "reboot" the X-Men franchise with a younger cast, but they didn't want the fan backlash that would have resulted from just remaking them. So they made a prequel, allowing them to cast younger actors. Then they threw in some (mental) time travel to change the timeline. Then they basically had their reboot, and could just ignore the previous movies, and logic.
The Rule of two makes perfect sense. It's perfectly clear and everyone knows what it is and why it is. The fact that not all in-universe characters decide to follow it to the letter in no way confuses the principle itself. People don't always follow rules, it's not a contradiction, it's a fact.
Actually my pet peeve is that too many Sith actually follow the rule. Groups like Jedi or Sith have thousands of years of previous lore - look at any similar group in real-life history: there's a plethora of sects, schools of thought, branches - many even opposing and battling themselves (Shia vs Sunni Muslims - Catholic vs Protestant Christians and it goes on. To me there should be dozens if not hundreds of different "schools" of Jedi and Sith around. Each with their own rules and beliefs.
@@danielsilvadesouza3060 There were. For both. There was a crapload of sects for both sides. EU has a ton of those in every period (obviously disregard whatever the Darth mouse is doing). It's simply that the Jedi order was dominant and no other sects achieved any spread or notoriety. And the Banite Sith simply cleansed any opposition in their time following the rule of Two, so any Sith-like cults in their time were either obscure or simply of no threat to the actual Sith lords. Note how both before and after he Rule of Two there always was a lot more Sith factions running around.
People criticized Henry Cavill's Superman for killing Zod but didn't seem to have an issue with Christopher Reeve's Superman doing the same with a smile on his face. When you drop a depowered Kryptonian down an icy cavern, they don't survive that.
Why would you criticise what superman done in 1980. People back then done something today's weak generation can't do, enjoy the movie and don't look for reasons to criticise. Man of steel: neck break, batman vs superman: Martha. Superman 2025: looks like Henry, the s, puts his costume on slow, too many characters, James Gunn.
Captain America did survive a long fall into the ice… and so did Bucky. A falls-into-water-and-we-don’t-see-a-body is the Schrodinger‘s cat of dead characters. The writer can say they are alive at will.
@@jamespope7669bro let's keep it real I was there too and the whole turn back time by rotating the world backwards was always criticized, plus a lot of fans were very vocal about Lex not being a business tycoon. The difference is that social media didn't exist.
@oscarsantiago1038 Technically, the Earth didn't spin backward - it just appeared to spin backward as Superman went back in time. So, for a short time, there were two Supermen (Supermans?) on Earth after the bomb exploded. 🤓
The best, pointlessly dumb aliens appeared in War of the Worlds. Where the Aliens die when exposed to our atmosphere… all that technology and they couldn’t tell that getting out of their ships would be fatal.
Batman's final quote to Ra's Al Ghul was "I wont kill you...But I don't have to save you". I think there is a difference, but that is for the viewer to decide.
The X-Men aging issue also gives Wolverine a pass. It was established long ago his mutant healing factor applies to aging as well keeping him young far beyond his years.
Agreed, a masked killer that answers to no one sounds like a nightmare. The Boys is all about this: the lives of powerless people in a society where superheroes are killers. The comic book KINGDOM COME is about this.
The Owl House actually joked about the Quidditch rules by having Luz rant about how an item like the snitch ruins the point of the game invalidates everyone’s effort 😂
Remember the PS2 game? I once lost while playing on the hardest difficulty because at one point it’ll force you to chase snitch, meanwhile my team was getting blown out in the background and even tho I got the snitch I still lost smh
@@BR-jw7pm Don’t forget that it is fucking awesome and a case study on how to steal everything from other media and mix it with heart so it turns out incredibly fun and lovable. 😉
The Quidditch argument always ignores the fact that point differentials throughout the season play a part in the final rankings. Based on the usual argument, a lot of sports leagues are stupid. For example, in the World Cup, if there are multiple teams with the same record, the team with the largest goal differential advances. So, if you win, you want to win by as many goals as possible. If you have to lose, you want to lose by as few goals as possible. Yes, it is best to win every game. However, how you lose also has a major impact on advancement. So, yes, catching the snitch to end the game and still lose the game by a few points is better than losing by a large amount because all wins and losses are not weighted equally.
I always know these kind of arguments are made by people who have never played any sports and have never even have interest in one. You know how big a 15-0 difference is in any sports? In footballs when Brail was thrashed 7-1 it was considered proper humiliation and once a lifetime event. 15-0 is more than DOUBLE that. If catching snitch has 15-0 advantage other players in the team are useless. You keep bringing world cup as an example yet ignore how big an advantage/disadvantage 15-0 is/ Yet you claim 15-0 based on one snitch is fair and is about winning by a few points. Hilarious, rowling doesn't understand sports and nor do people like you.
@harish123az There is no need for personal attacks. I have played many sports. The main problem with your argument is that you are comparing a "once in a lifetime" event with an event that is guaranteed to occur in every match. You know one of the teams will get the 150 points in every match. So, if you know the opposing team has you outmatched on offense, and I running up the score. You are better off catching the snitch to close the point differentials, end the game, and lose by a small margin to save the season standings than it is to risk losing by a significantly larger margin and doom the entire season chances.
@@aubreybrackett7653 1) is it really a personal attack to claim you know nothing about sports based on your very own comments and reasoning? I dont think so, its fairly apparent what your sports interest and knowledge is! 2) A 15 to 1 advantage is too large for any other player or teams to focus on anything but their seeker. if a position had 15 to 1 advantage all teams would focus on that position (seeker) and ignore anything else I have to make another personal comment, but you are equally bad at maths as sports, a 15 to 1 advantage is HUGE and mostly insurmountable..
@@aubreybrackett7653 Show me proof that quidditch team reached 150 every match and 2) even if they did, arent you proving my point? the entire 6 member team can reach 150 by huffing and puffing and the seeker can reach that by one move? Dont you see the sheer lunacy of this? You keep talking about honorable defeat where seekers catch while being 150+ behind but ignore that in 99.9% matches seekers can just catch the snitch and win and the six other players DONT MATTER? Have you seen ANY sports with such lopsided results and when one player is worth 15 of others I will repeat, those who defend quidditch are those who have never played any sport or those who have never even followed sports or really low IQ people!
@harish123az Again, you do not understand. The snitch is historically very difficult to catch, with a famous match lasting 3 months. So, a team could designate their entire team to catch the snitch. However, only the seeker can catch the snitch. This would be very dumb, as you would allow the opposing team to score exceptionally quickly. They could easily run up a score beyond what the snitch would hope to award you. As soon as a team scores, the quaffle is handed to the keeper. The quaffle is immediately in play after the opposing teams' chasers and keeper return to their side of the pitch. The opposing teams' beaters are not required to return to their side of the pitch. So, 2 beaters are just waiting to clobber the unprotected keeper, letting the seekers quickly get possession of the quaffle. They would easily outscore the snitch value in a matter of minutes.
The time travel stuff itself isn't the only thing that makes no sense in Looper. What about the stupid plot device that they have to send people to the past to get murdered because it is so hard to get rid of bodies in the future? That is so stupid, it hurts.
Christopher Reeve's Superman killed Zod, too. At least the newer had a reason: to stop him from killing those people. Reeve's had depowered Zod so he wasn't a threat to anyone... and then killed him anyway.
He doesn’t kill him - he just drops him down a tunnel and it doesn’t show you him die. However, there is a deleted scene where you see all 3 kryptonians being led away in handcuffs.
@@daviddawson6150 So... since Lois wasn't in on this "plan," does that make her evil since she punched... uh... whatshername down the same hole without any way of knowing that she'd land safely?
@@Steele42 - At what point is it suggested that Lois intended to punch the woman down the hole? She just punched her, and the woman fell. Essentially, the sliding down the hole thing was designed to just get the defeated bad guys off the screen so they weren’t standing around awkwardly while the scene wrapped up.
@@daviddawson6150 Well, they were all standing on a very narrow ledge. Poking her to the point of movement would have knocked her off. I was always under the impression they were killed as that's the way it looked in theater.
Signs wasn't about aliens, it was about Demons. Bo is mentioned as an "angel" when she was born, and thus she is inadvertently leaving "holy water" around the house and that's why the demon is injured by it.
@@garretthendricks6350 Comics/books and arguably in the movies throughout the franchise. It's mentioned that the greatest screw-up during one outbreak was assuming the gestation time would limit the spread. The first queen had matured in weeks, but as more appeared they figured out that the gestation period was exactly as long as they decided, and coincidentally that was fairly consistent throughout the movies, starting with Aliens, where the bursting happens when the marines show up in the hive and interact with the host (posing an immediate danger to it), and twice in Alien 3, first when the host is left unsupervised and later the moment Ripley yeets herself into the furnace (again, immediate danger). Resurrection leaves it unclear for most hosts, but one host has his burst when he's shot (immediate danger), and in AvP & AvP2 the gestation period is seemingly as short as possible, except for the impregnated predator, which the chestburster first seemingly uses to get onto the ship and then bursts out of after being left alone. At some point it's going to start to sound stupid to just write it off as accidental inconsistency or coincidence.
Looper's biggest flaw: They kill his wife in the future. If the entire premise of the movie is that you can't kill people in the future as you will be immediately discovered, why would the criminal organization try to kill Bruce Willis in the future but then satisfy themselves with killing his wife. If killing a criminal is too terrible, how could killing an innocent be considered okay? The fact immediately destroys the entire plotline for the film. (I still love it, though)
My Quidditch scoring issue: the scores are 10x higher than needed. They could just take the 0 off, and the rules would make more sense right away, especially for those still understanding numbers/math- as it's easier to compare 17 to 1+15 than 170 to 10+150 before learning multiplication to understand that you can just take away a 0 and be able to tell how many scores they are apart. That was the World Cup score that couldn't fit in the Goblet of Fire movie, but it's the closest end score in the series I believe. (I know inflating the numbers can make it seem more intense, but I was 9 when the first film came out and the only thing that seemed to matter was the Snitch only because of the "you catch this, and we win" line. So I didn't care to try to understand why they were going for goals)
"The first two rules make perfectly simple sense." Does the water one make sense, though? Do they not drink water? Weren't gremlins drinking at the bar? Aside from this, the movie is taking place during Christmas with snow all over.
maybe the alchol doesnt trigger the shift? Just as well else the bar would have been overrun. Maybe they dont drink it, they have to be touched by it. Questions that needed to be asked when filming, I guess.
There are actually lots of animals that don't drink water: greater roadrunner, camel, sidewinder, desert iguana, Australian thorny devil, desert tortoise, Fennec fox, kangaroo rat and prairie dog are examples. They get their water from their food (be it plants or animals). Aside from it being an 80's movie, I'd say probably being _soaked_ would be more accurate. Most furry animals are protected from snow, while water would soak & bother them.
Think I have only seen Double Jeopardy once. Someone refresh my memory: do circumstances make it unfeasible for Libby to prove that her allegedly slain husband and her living target are the same man? Seems like the smartest course.
No, She was convicted on circumstantial evidence and the amount of blood from the scene. His blood will still likely be held from the case and DNA was a thing at the time, she can easily prove they are the same person. Even if that wasn't the case dental and medical records could also be used. In addition to the DNA of their son being used to identify her husband as the father. Multiple convenient ways to establish her former husband's identity
After birthing during Kane's last meal, how did the alien gain the body mass large enough to carry Brett into the overhead one, max two, days later? Whattz it been eating???
@@SteveMoncuse I got the feeling they were eating each other in the caves til they were finally able to break out, thats why there were so many weird skeletons around.
The Xenomorph got into the crew's food rations and ate them all, that's how it got so big so quickly. Hope this helps. Also, I have to check out this "Pitch Black" movie y'all are talking about now, sounds cool ❤
In Signs, it was alluded to that the little girl was tasting/sensing something in the water. She always called it "contaminated". So I don't believe it was water in general, but "something" in the water.
I saw that from many comments above yours. IMO that's fans trying to justify the water controversy, not something that was meant by the filmmakers of the original. Since this is a science fiction film, it wouldn't be hard to create a biology that explains why liquid water is traumatic to aliens but gaseous H2O is not. After all, even though water is water, salt water fish cannot survive in fresh water, and vice versa. If aliens saw a movie about fish, they could find it preposterous that fish can live in only one type of water.
Another thing about Quiddich: Does their "1900's" style padding actually protect the broom riders from falls from such heights? (I really don't know, only seen a couple of the movies and haven't read the books) You would think everyone would be fitted with a 'Feather Fall' spell or something should they get knocked off their broom, but it seems in line with all the other Horrors Hogwarts ignores (Giant Man Eating Intelligent Spiders in the woods just outside the school? Don't worry about it! 😅)
Signs is a crisis of faith story where God saves the world with a miracle, it is not as science fiction movie. The whole story is Father Graham losing his faith in God and quitting the church after his wife dies. When things get bad enough he finally turns back to God and begins to pray and then the miracle happens. It takes place in the same fictional universe where lambs blood on your door saves you from death and water turns into wine and a man built a boat big enough for two of every animal.
There have been quite a few characters that have gone against the Rule of Two, and it isn't uncommon for the Apprentice to begin training one of their own before finally confronting their Master. Bane's own Apprentice, Zannah, was ready to take over, but put that on hold until she could find an Apprentice of her own. Her eventual Apprentice, Cognus, lost her Apprentice to defection. Palpatine trained Maul as an assassin until he killed Plagious, Tyrannus trained Ventris similar to Maul until his loyalty was called into question, and Palpatine abandoned the Rule of Two altogether after Vader's physical crippling and mental issues became a liability.
Palpatine only abandons the rule of two if you consider Disney's rubbish cannon. But to be fair sith lord and sith assassins or acolytes are 2 different things
People just need to nitpick on Signs. Ok, there is water in the atmosphere, but if you stand outside on a sunny day do you get wet? No. That answers the question on why they weren't bothered by it until they had direct contact with it. And just for fun, Why did they pick a planet covered in water? One easy answer is they were not planning on moving in. Just stripping it for resources. People do it all the time. As long as you are over here you are fine, but if you go over there it could kill you. For the most part this list makes sense. Anything dealing with time travel is a guessing game since it's not actually possible. So trying to find logic in a fantasy situation is practically impossible. And the superheroes no killing rule makes perfect sense, it's just hard to adhere to it perfectly as in some cases, you might not have a choice.
Let's not forget about all the dew on the corn that the aliens run through. Also despite it never raining in the movie it is still a genuine threat to the aliens. Yet they walk around NAKED of all things.
Speaking of water...Jason Voorhees spends an awful lot of time in and under water for a guy who’s supposedly terrified of, and incapacitated by water, as he was during his face-off with Freddy Krueger.
The water weakness was also present in the Alien Nation movies but that was salt water, not fresh and even when they were living in LA which is apparently closer to the ocean than other states, they still developed a rash til their bodies got used to the salt air. This is an example of a water weakness done right. Signs was an example of doing it wrong.
I don't think it was salt water per say but sodium the Tenctonese had an averse effect to. Personal head canon; its the same with Death Angels in a Quiet Place, another monster with a questionable water weakness. When we see one of them clawing a ship after jumping into sea water it probably feels likes its drowning in bleach.
I always thought that the rules of quidditch were the most nonsensical things I have ever heard. Basically, it means that the rest of the team isn't really needed. The other players can just let the two seekers chase that stupid snitch around the field while they sit in the stands and eat hot dogs.
To be fair to the Potter filmmakers, they inherited the Quidditch nonsense from Rowling in the books. Similarly, the No Kill rule for many superheroes is strongly rooted in their comic book origins. In this case though, it's much more complex than it's portrayed here, with both narrative and meta-narrative reasons to include that as a character aspect.
In the alien franchise, I always thought the biggest problem was their acid blood. What type of acid was it and what was it about their body chemistry that meant they didn't get dissolved? Was it fluoroantimonic acid and their blood vessels made of teflon?
Well, acids can be contained in glass… Your stomach has acids in it that would eat through all the organs around it, except the pepsin coating inside the stomach stops that from happening so it could be the lining of the blood vessels etc
It's individuals like Gareth that are attempting to ruin fantasy cinema for everyone, trying to put logic where logic doesn't belong. Movies are fantasy, Gareth. They don't have to make sense. You accept everything else fantasy about the movie, but have to nit-pick certain details? That's being rather hypocritical don't ya think?
"Star Trek" into darkness was not Star Trek. J. J. Abrams is a hack. Get rid of Abrams' loathsome universe and Trekdom improves dramatically. I give you a thumbs-down for daring to reference it AS Star Trek rather than as crap.
I've had the Quidditch discussion before with friends. Harry's success in the movies tends to skew the obvious. Catching a snitch should be damn near impossible. Making the pursuit of it practically irrelevant. Honestly "Seeker" should be the job you put the least talented player on. :) Even "children" being as small as they are at 12 to 15 could in no way ever hope to catch a magical hummingbird that can literally fly in any direction and turn instantaneously. At any point in Chamber of Secrets that snitch could have gone in any spherical direction. Harry simply reaching forward for it would have no hope of catching it. And it is silly that the snitch would just fly in a straight line, in hopes of just being faster. In the 1000 years that Hogwarts has been open, logically, maybe 6 people could have "lucked" into catching one. As silly as it is to apply physics to Quidditch, inertia and G forces would literally prevent a human from catching a snitch. Ever.
@@volentimeh I'm not saying they enchanted them "specifically" to make it impossible. It would seem that they enchanted them to be a hummingbird or dragonfly. And while yes, both of those species have predators. Their predators aren't 80 lbs. children flying on magical pieces of wood. 🤣 Inertia is a thing. In a drag race, sure, Harry's probably going to win. As would anyone with a good broom. But agility and turning ability are what should make it "almost" impossible to catch one. 😉
Two things: The Alien gestation period really came into play in "Aliens" when Larry's chestburster came out exactly when it was needed, and the "No Kill" rule is honestly quite stupid, because, as far as I'm concerned, it's not the act of killing itself, but the reason behind the killing that separates hero from villain!
I don't know how you define heroes, but I see no heroism in killing irrespective of the reason. Reasons are always subjective and there can be arguably better alternatives. Heroism should be in overcoming fears & obstacles and saving.
@@mollywoodshots6503 The example given of Henry Cavil's Superman - was he wrong to kill Zod, what would have happened if he didn't? What was Zod planning on doing, and would never stop - so yes Killing can be justified in some cases, depending on the reasoning behind it.
@@rianmacdonald9454 There are several ways in which he could have incapacitated or immobilized Zod. That situation was written like that for plot convenience only.
WRT _Signs_ , why don't advanced aliens, capable of interstellar flight, ever wear clothes?? Some waterproof uniforms might have proved useful when attacking a water-logged planet. Humans stopped fighting naked back in the stone age!
37.5 million gallons of water in the air for the entire planet at any given time sounded way, WAY, WAAAAAAY too low to me. So I went down a rabbit hole for anyone who cares. That number should be more like 22.3 quadrillion gallons of water in the air, considering an average planet-wide humidity of 2-3%. Sorry to nitpick, but that original number is so far off that I couldn't help myself. Captain Buzzkill OUT!
Terminator and the Kyle Reese statement "nobody comes, no body goes back" Transformers and the spark of life that was the very last piece in the Universe...oh! I hada a little more at home In general, Star Wars use of the Force, specially with the Jedi. Sometimes they look awesome powerful and other like kids playing at the yard. When fighting against Darth Moul in the Phanton Menace, Obi Wan jumps about 60 feet to catch with Qui-Gon Jinn. After that he runs like me when I hear a fly. Earlier, about the beginning, when they are attacked by droideka, they both run like Steve Austin In Clone Wars Yoda seems to struggle to avoid Obi Wan been crushed by a big piece of metal. In The Empire Strikes Back he said: size matters not
If you are talking about the clip outside that mad lady's house, they were also wearing clothes, perhaps it protected them from active contact? It has to be skin to water contact.
What confused me the most was Alien 4. How did they get the DNA material of an infected Ripley, WITH the chestburster still inside her to clone her multiple times? Even if they got Ripley's DNA, I don't think the chestburster's DNA would hitch a ride on it. That's not how that works Batman's no kill policy never made any sense to me, especially because of Arkham Asylum's apparent revolving door confinement actions Joker would escape from Arkham asylum, he kills a number of people, Batman catches him and sends him back to Arkham Riddler escapes from Arkham asylum, he kills a number of people, Batman catches him and sends him back to Arkham Mr. Freeze escapes from Arkham asylum, he kills a number of people, Batman catches him and sends him back to Arkham Ad Infinitum First off, why is it that they only go to this particular asylum? Is there no other facilities to take them? Maybe a REAL prison? Does this mean that EVERY SINGKE major criminal in Gotham is mentally insane Why, if Batman has a no kill policy, doesn't Gotham have capital punishment? Especially considering that they constantly kill people in VERY gruesome ways Batman never made sense to me because of this
The Rule of Two is associated with how the Force follows the "path of least resistance" during Imbalance - thus, "once you strike down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!". You get pulled in to Sith ways if you even dabble in the Dark Side. And similarly, you won't be inventing any magics that are notin dominant patterns, (Jedi) or (Sith). Sith Lords used it to draw more power to themselves. Regular Sith are just dynamos in this context - still illegal in most of the galaxy, but ultimately a matter for regular police forces, not the Jedi.
Superman has killed several times. He killed Darkseid, the Joker, & doctor light. He even killed batman, the Flash, and Wonder Woman. Read comics, or don't pretend to read comics. Your not hip.
Aliens incubation period may depend on a lot of things, how much the host is eating, the host’s original physical health condition, the aliens genetical make up, it can be many things. It still makes some what sense.
I would also add the "kill the queen, stop the invasion" nonsense - it's just lazy and stupid, and no actual species works like that. If you kill an ant or bee queen, they just create another and all the other ants and bees don't just drop dead in the meantime. I'm pretty sure that advanced alien civilizations would also understand the concepts of redundancy and single point of failure - looking at you, _Battle: Los Angeles_ , _Ender's Game_ , _Edge of Tomorrow_ etc. Oddly enough, the film with the most insect like aliens, _Starship Troopers_ , didn't have this silly trope.
Into Darkness, The Rise of Skywalker, and every X-Men movie after Days of Future Past (except Logan) were all terrible movies. Nothing in them made any sense.
I think Looper follows Back to the Future time travel rules, which I sometimes refer to as Buffering. You change the past it has a ripple effect into the future. How quickly the ripple travels depends on how major of a change is made. I don't think it makes much sense but it's a version of Time Travel Rules.
My biggest peeve was the blank fax at the end of the BTTF trilogy. Thematically, it was a nice little message, but it completely violated the rules established in all the films. Honourable mention to that Sandra Bullock/Julian McMahon film where the little girl's face wasn't cut up on a day when it was supposed to have been.
the gestation period of a xenomorph is a few hours. all alien movies after aliens are non-canon. i don’t wanna hear it, they all suck outside of the first 2 so you can just ignore them.
The "Don't expose the creature to water" rule is utterly stupid because water is the basis of any complex lifeform. Even protozoons like bacteria need water to function. The Mogwai is clearly a multi-cellular organism with body liquids (based on water) and a metabolism that needs water to work. Everything he eats and the air he breathes contain water. The Wicked Witch being killed with water in The Wizard Of Oz is an exeption because it happened in Dorothy's dream, and dreams don't need to make sense.
It's been, well, the early 1970's since I last read it, but the Star Fleet Technical Manual had a chapter covering various Starfleet regulations and UFP laws, including the Prime Directive. It read like an actual legal document for the most part so was eye wateringly boring to a young teen! But the Prime Directive was detailed there. How well? I honestly don't remember. In the tv series Space Above and Beyond, they give an alien some water and it dies as a result. So Signs wasn't using an original idea there.
The rules of Quidditch make perfect sense when you consider how bonkers the wizarding society is and how they constantly put the preference in unfair advantages. The only thing that really makes no sense is that they basically only have one sport when logically they should have dozens. Sure, Quidditch is the equivalent of soccer, but where are the equivalents of golf, tennis or boxing? Even their equivalent of chess is just chess but with sentient pieces.
my issue with Man of Steel was the sloppy collateral damage... not very "superman"... Signs was rewritten by producers in post-production - these were supposed to be demons and it was holy water because the daughter was blessing it... believe me- it almost hurts to defend such a myopic filmmaker as Shamalyan, but this was actually not holy his fault...
Quidditch With Quidditch and the Seeker position, there is a fan theory that when the game was invented brooms were a lot slower, making it a lot harder for the seekers to actually catch the snitch. That would mean the games were on average a lot longer, meaning the rest of the teams can make a lot more points and the 150 points might no longer have such a large impact. With wizards being slow to accept change, they do not update the rules even when the change in equipment would make it necessary. Rule of Two Probably by now something from legends and technically no longer canon, I hope I remember everything right. At the point in time when Sidious is the master, the rule of two has been corrupted and Sidious and his master before him were kind of only paying lipservice to it. The idea is that with only one master there wouldn't be any conflicts of interest with other masters and that master is pursuing a goal for the Sith in general, not for himself. In a way they are more or less supposed to act selfless in that endeavor and train their apprentice to the best of their abilities and when the time comes accept their death when their apprentice has overcome them. With Darth Bane who started that order, if I'm not mistaken he was killed by his apprentice in a fair fight, no backstabbing or anything, so his apprentice truly proved to be stronger. With Plagueis, he wanted to end the rule of two, that's why he researched how the force could heal and create life, he died when Sidious stabbed him in the back in a moment of weakness. The actual Rule of Two has something of a Jedi like mentality to being Sith. Aliens in Signs The aliens are actually demons and the water in the house is blessed and that's why they are affected like this, because it's holy water. That's why the aliens are rather low tech and you never actually see any ships. It also fits with the religious theme around Mel Gibson's character.
Comics characters don't age much in the comics - why would they in the movies? In the comics most of the X-men are in their 30's despite the original title being launched in the late 1960's.
I never understood why magician battles in Harry Potter were just like gun fights with wands shooting like guns- no very magical like. I think the Magicians series did magic better.
Rule of two was made by the Sith, who aren’t known for caring about rules. Also, Batman hasn’t killed anyone, he just did some things and the people died by coincidence
The no kill rule. Go back to Nolans batman begins. Batman tells ras he won't kill him. But he doesn't have to save him either. Batman doesn't willingly kill. But sometimes things happen. Ben afflecks Batman was a killer. He completely changed the darknights canon.
When it comes to aliens I'm willing to give a little bit of a benefit of the doubt since it appears that they are in an engineered species. I would guess different iterations have different gestation
mogwai don't care about clocks. they are answerable to the sun. midnight is the actual mid point between sunset and sunrise. good luck with keeping track of that.
Why didn't acid blood "Alien" make the list. First movie: a little cut on a face hugger threatens the ship. Aliens: blow a couple to smithereens, and it's all good?
The Prime Directive is an ethical guideline, sort of like having a code of ethics for doctors or lawyers, and was given an origin based on Enterprise (series) and the Vulcans, although this isn't explicitly stated. It is easy to see how they progress to that view, living by that guideline as they explore further and further out and meet people who they end up harming or possibly doing harm to, and some more advanced people who harm or could harm them by interference. It is also easy to see how such a guideline could have some gray area. Picard was one of the strongest adherents to the Prime Directive, but he definitely breaks it to save Wesley in the first season.
I saw Signs in a movie theater. The twist ending was such a rip-off of an iconic film which does not suck, that I almost started yelling out, "I'm melting! I'm melting!"
You make a really good point about Signs, but one of the fan theories is that they were demons, hence it was HOLY WATER that was burning them, as he was a priest.
I hurt watching the movie. It wasn’t supposed to even be about about aliens. It was about a man losing his faith in God and then regaining back. Im an atheist, yet I can still appreciate the message behind this movie. He should have used something besides water, a little ridiculous. But if you don’t think about about water it’s a pretty good message. He’s just dumb.
The aliens in Signs would most likely want to take the risk of invading the Earth for harvesting because resources are scarce in the galaxy. Earth would be a prize for alien species (we would do the same if we could travel the stars).
One thing about Ellen Ripley and her chest burster not following the gestation period, is she was impregnated in a stasis chamber and was in that chamber at the beginning of the film (if I am wrong PLEASE correct me as it has been a while since I have seen that Alien film, I mostly watch the first 2)
The rule of two theres only ever 1 master and apprentice. The apprentice is always trying to kill his master taking his spot thus opening up another apprentice spot which can be filled by someone pre selected like starkiller. The people on exogal and the inquisitors are part of the sith empire but are not sith themselves. The people on exogal would be the equivalent of a person working as a janitor in the jedi temple. Darth maul was supposed to be just a kind of throw away assassin (basically what general Greivious was) however when Sidious manged to kill his master thus taking the master spot maul was elevated to apprentice rank until his defeat by by obiwan
The aliens in Signs are demons, not aliens; the water is holy in a priest's house. The whole film is a Christian redemption story, It's reasonably obvious, you just have to look for the signs :)
When it comes to Sign, the alien theory is the redirect from a non-secular take at face value, but it's a movie about a man's lost faith and going by the religious angle, the water was blessed by his daughter. Not aliens but demon. I'm not even a religious person but viewing it from that angle changes the movie and doesn't take away from it.
The "Rule of Two" is the best piece of misinformation the Sith ever sold to the Jedi
Kirk wasn't demoted for breaking the prime directive it was for lying on an official report
It wasn't Kirk, anyway. Abrams' garbage is not worthy of being discussed as if he's accomplished anything good.
Time travel shenanigans aside, t he thing that I always questioned about Looper, was "How does future Joe become left-handed?"
Cause his right hand is out of action from bashing the bishop 😂
"Double Jeopardy" She was correct in her use of the clause. She was convicted of murdering her husband, Nick, and as since she was already specifically convicted of his murder. The understanding of this being " how do you convict someone for killing a person who is already legally dead and that you have already sentenced for that murder?" She would likely have her parole revoked and returned to jail, but she would get out again in a few years.
The double jeopardy rule states that if you've been tried for a specific instance of a crime and that trial arrived at a verdict, you cannot be tried again for the same instance of that offense. Even that has limits. If you are convicted and the verdict is set aside on appeal, the prosecutor can try the case again. If, on appeal, the verdict is reversed, the prosecutor cannot.
In this case she would be accused of a separate instance of murder. The protagonist could argue at sentencing that she had already served a prison sentence for killing that same individual, and this would be very likely to weigh in her favor, but the double jeopardy rule itself would not apply.
You are convicted for a crime/event not a specific victim. Otherwise bank robbers could rob the same bank again after getting out of prison or the same abusive spouse couldn't get arrested twice. There are also many other things a prosecutor could charge her with: murder in the first, second, third degree, manslaughter first and second degree, attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, assault, adult with intent to unite, countless laws go into effect if something is done in furtherance of a crime, state level and federal level court cases are different too....etc
That is not correct. The law states that you cannot be tried of a specific instance of a crime twice.
Example: I am on trial for theft. The case goes to court and I'm found to be innocent. Later, evidence is revealed that proves 100% that I did in fact steal. Too bad. I was already tried for that instance of theft. That's the double jeopardy law.
What it is not is I am tried for stealing and found guilty, but it's later proven I didn't steal so I can now go steal for real and not be convicted which is the logic applied in the movie.
She could be charged by the state of Louisiana of murder however what time of murder we don't know and it is very likely that a jury wouldn't convict due to the circumstances and that she would be sent back for a perol violation before being reunited with her son and get all her dead husband's money. Now it would have been smarter for her to not kill him because he would have been sent to jail.
@thehomeschoolinglibrarian I am sure they would try, but very unlikely to get anywhere. It would be difficult to get an indictment against her for killing someone who is legally dead and for which she has currently serving a sentence. Parole violation certainly, send her back, but she is out again in 2 years after public pressure.
No.10-thank you. Even as I kid I remember saying, “isnt every day after midnight?”
I always wondered why in the final battle between Billy Stripe and Gizmo in the dept store, Stripe gets wet a few times and nothing happens.
@@donnywilliamson5807watch Gremlins2. It has the perfect answer when a character has this very question.
Holy!? I never really thought about that whenever I hear that obscure phrase
The Xenomorph one is explained. The time is different depending on the needs of the hive, if drones are needed asap they'll develop faster
How does that explain the first movie, tho? It's isolated in a vehicle traveling through space. Wouldn't the need be to have a queen in order for a hive to exist?
@@oscarsantiago1038 That could be explained as some form of danger/panic interpreted by the the Xenomorph as the ship moves away from the hive and it can no longer sense the queen, thus bursting free sooner.
@@oscarsantiago1038 sadly with the disregarded plot lines don't make continuity between Alien and Aliens. As in the delete scene you see Brett is being turned into a cocoon with Dallas on the wall. So I can't give you the cannon explanation but Alien does throw a wrench in a bunch of the lore
@@topnotchvariable Deleted scenes aren't canon. Even in the special edition where Dallas cocooned on the wall is put back in, the egg's cropped out so it doesn't contradict Aliens.
@@marvhollingworth663 Lore in other places (comics and novels, 'Aliens: Steel Egg' iirc) uses this concept though. So it's still canon.
Eating after midnight does not cause Mogwai to pop out of Gizmo’s back - that’s water. Eating after midnight causes Mogwai to enter a cocoon state and metamorphose into Gremlins.
I also took the “Don’t feed after midnight” rule to mean you can’t feed them between midnight and 1200 noon.
Probably more like midnight and sunrise. Sunlight kills them remember?
@@starscreamthecruel8026 - why does feeding them after 1200 noon have to mean they will be in sunlight?
I hear that the rules were purposely written to sound nonsensical.
Signs: There's a strong theory that the aliens are in fact demons, and the water in the ex preacher's home had been blessed and was therefore holy water, able to harm the demons.
In 2006, there was an animated movie called Barnyard. The main character was a male cow.
Cows and bulls are actually separate animals. It just so happens they share names for the males and females. Male cows become burgers.
@@bbsy1 I shown this to my little sister and her exact response was: "thats like saying chickens and roosters are different".
A male cow is called a steer. Get out mote, bud.
Edit: get out *more
@@williamdixon-gk2sk A castrated male bovine is called a steer. A fully-functional male bovine is called a bull. In neither case do they sport udders.
@rmdodsonbills * the character the o.p. mentioned was a steer, i know what a bull is. Steer is what o.p. meant by male cow. But who said anything about udders?
Edit: You win, I just came to the conclusion that cow IMPLIES udders. Good form.
My favorite exception to the superhero "no kill" rule: Wonder Woman. She's a warrior. She has no qualms at all about killing her enemies, if she thinks they deserve it. This has actually caused tension with Superman and/or Batman several times in various comic book and cartoon versions of the Justice League, which makes for interesting stories.
And yet, she tends to follow it while on League missions.
She's super strong. In most cases, she doesnt have to kill them, she can just incapacitate them and leave them disabled for the cops so if she really DOES have to take a life, its because the enemy is just too dangerous to keep alive. It makes sense.
The Batman example is particularly silly, given that his various vehicles are equipped with machine guns and rockets! It also doesn't make any sense, given how counter-productive the rule is - as well explored, though without a satisfactory conclusion, in _Batman: Under the Red Hood_ . Also, as pointed out in the greatest Batman film of all time, _The Lego Batman Movie_ , no matter how often Batman keeps beating and imprisoning his various enemies, they just keep escaping and coming back, hence causing the deaths of innumerable innocent people!
@@anthonyalles1833 In the comics, Batman doesn't have those weapons on the vehicles. That was actually the biggest complaint that many people had about the 1988 Batman movie.
@@yagsyags5694 He does seem a little 90s era James Bond with the gadgets but I figured that was kinda cool.
The way the third rule is written, technically, a Mogwai can only eat up until 1159pm the day he is born.
The rule should have been Don't feed them between sunset and sunrise.
Whilst that would've been better, logically speaking, the plot requires that Billy accidentally feeds them after midnight once Spike sabotages his alarm clock. But difficult to do that if he checked outside for sunset...
@@andyc8257 I think his name was Stripe (sorry to be that person but erm yeah)
I always assumed it was from midnight to sunrise, but I never thought about the timezone question.
Somewhere on earth it is always after midnight ....
The aliens in Signs weren’t aliens but demons. The water is holy water.
I’ve heard that theory and adds a layer of depth to a film everyone writes off as “decent at best”
Exactly!!
@@BR-jw7pm I wouldn't say that making it dumber adds depth.
@@Dimetropteryx based on the theory I heard, the person brought up a lot of good points so I don’t think it’s any dumber than “intelligent aliens travel to planet that’s 70% their weakness”
@@BR-jw7pmdepends on the reason they travelled here. What if it was out of sheer desperation
Lawyer here, what the double jeopardy clause prevents is not conviction, but trial. There’s a lot of technicalities and exceptions involved but basically once you are tried once, you can’t be tried again
Tried and acquitted. It's really difficult, but possible to be tried again if you are convicted.
@@rmdodsonbills hey it’s more complicated than that, honestly.
The stupidity of the movie Double Jeopardy is easy to explain as the advice comes from a self taught jailhouse lawyer. Someone with no actual legal education trying to piece make sense of legal jargon in an attempt to get themselves out of jail misunderstanding what they read. Just look at the legal sounding word salad of SovCits for examples of this.
@@aaronworthing1023 I imagine so, but in any case, the main circumstance where it matters is when someone is acquitted. Who convicts someone and then keeps trying them? That's like losing something, finding it, and then continuing to search.
@@rmdodsonbills not really. For instance in constitutional law, jeopardy attaches when the prosecution’s case begins. Not after conviction.
X-Men aging - What you have to understand about the prequels is that the studio desperately wanted to "reboot" the X-Men franchise with a younger cast, but they didn't want the fan backlash that would have resulted from just remaking them. So they made a prequel, allowing them to cast younger actors. Then they threw in some (mental) time travel to change the timeline. Then they basically had their reboot, and could just ignore the previous movies, and logic.
The Gremlins rule is fine. It's not about precisely midnight; it's about so many hours after dusk. Midnight is just a rule of thumb.
I agree. It's the same:
1. Vampires and the dark.
2. Werewolves and a full moon.
The Rule of two makes perfect sense. It's perfectly clear and everyone knows what it is and why it is.
The fact that not all in-universe characters decide to follow it to the letter in no way confuses the principle itself. People don't always follow rules, it's not a contradiction, it's a fact.
Actually my pet peeve is that too many Sith actually follow the rule.
Groups like Jedi or Sith have thousands of years of previous lore - look at any similar group in real-life history: there's a plethora of sects, schools of thought, branches - many even opposing and battling themselves (Shia vs Sunni Muslims - Catholic vs Protestant Christians and it goes on.
To me there should be dozens if not hundreds of different "schools" of Jedi and Sith around. Each with their own rules and beliefs.
@@danielsilvadesouza3060 There were. For both. There was a crapload of sects for both sides. EU has a ton of those in every period (obviously disregard whatever the Darth mouse is doing).
It's simply that the Jedi order was dominant and no other sects achieved any spread or notoriety. And the Banite Sith simply cleansed any opposition in their time following the rule of Two, so any Sith-like cults in their time were either obscure or simply of no threat to the actual Sith lords.
Note how both before and after he Rule of Two there always was a lot more Sith factions running around.
People criticized Henry Cavill's Superman for killing Zod but didn't seem to have an issue with Christopher Reeve's Superman doing the same with a smile on his face. When you drop a depowered Kryptonian down an icy cavern, they don't survive that.
In the Donner cut, they lived at the end.
Why would you criticise what superman done in 1980. People back then done something today's weak generation can't do, enjoy the movie and don't look for reasons to criticise. Man of steel: neck break, batman vs superman: Martha. Superman 2025: looks like Henry, the s, puts his costume on slow, too many characters, James Gunn.
Captain America did survive a long fall into the ice… and so did Bucky. A falls-into-water-and-we-don’t-see-a-body is the Schrodinger‘s cat of dead characters. The writer can say they are alive at will.
@@jamespope7669bro let's keep it real I was there too and the whole turn back time by rotating the world backwards was always criticized, plus a lot of fans were very vocal about Lex not being a business tycoon. The difference is that social media didn't exist.
@oscarsantiago1038 Technically, the Earth didn't spin backward - it just appeared to spin backward as Superman went back in time.
So, for a short time, there were two Supermen (Supermans?) on Earth after the bomb exploded.
🤓
The best, pointlessly dumb aliens appeared in War of the Worlds. Where the Aliens die when exposed to our atmosphere… all that technology and they couldn’t tell that getting out of their ships would be fatal.
not atmosphere. bacteria, germs and virus. their immune systeme was unable to cope
He didn't kill Ra's, he simply didn't save him.
Batman's final quote to Ra's Al Ghul was "I wont kill you...But I don't have to save you". I think there is a difference, but that is for the viewer to decide.
"I put you in an inescapable death trap and won't help you but that's totally not murder."
-Batman, probably
@@SupremeGreatGrandmaster 😂😂😂
The jigsaw didn't kill anybody
"But you created the circumstance of which I die. WE BOTH KNOW YOUR ETHICAL LOOPHOLE IS BS!!!" -Nostalgia Critic
The X-Men aging issue also gives Wolverine a pass. It was established long ago his mutant healing factor applies to aging as well keeping him young far beyond his years.
Yeah Mystique and Wolverine are the only two that can get away with that stunt.
Quite the Randian view of superheroes. The fact that they DON'T kill is what makes them better than us.
Agreed, a masked killer that answers to no one sounds like a nightmare. The Boys is all about this: the lives of powerless people in a society where superheroes are killers. The comic book KINGDOM COME is about this.
The Owl House actually joked about the Quidditch rules by having Luz rant about how an item like the snitch ruins the point of the game invalidates everyone’s effort 😂
Remember the PS2 game? I once lost while playing on the hardest difficulty because at one point it’ll force you to chase snitch, meanwhile my team was getting blown out in the background and even tho I got the snitch I still lost smh
What's the Owl House? 🦉 🏠
@@alm2187 a Disney Channel show about a teenage girl who discovers a magical world and studies to be a witch
@@BR-jw7pm Don’t forget that it is fucking awesome and a case study on how to steal everything from other media and mix it with heart so it turns out incredibly fun and lovable. 😉
Seems it would be better if most of your team ignores the actual game and helps the one person catch the snitch.
signs
alien masters "we won we have conquered Earth"
Alien race "fine mate, you effing stay there sounds like hell to us"
The Quidditch argument always ignores the fact that point differentials throughout the season play a part in the final rankings.
Based on the usual argument, a lot of sports leagues are stupid. For example, in the World Cup, if there are multiple teams with the same record, the team with the largest goal differential advances. So, if you win, you want to win by as many goals as possible. If you have to lose, you want to lose by as few goals as possible. Yes, it is best to win every game. However, how you lose also has a major impact on advancement. So, yes, catching the snitch to end the game and still lose the game by a few points is better than losing by a large amount because all wins and losses are not weighted equally.
I always know these kind of arguments are made by people who have never played any sports and have never even have interest in one. You know how big a 15-0 difference is in any sports? In footballs when Brail was thrashed 7-1 it was considered proper humiliation and once a lifetime event. 15-0 is more than DOUBLE that.
If catching snitch has 15-0 advantage other players in the team are useless. You keep bringing world cup as an example yet ignore how big an advantage/disadvantage 15-0 is/
Yet you claim 15-0 based on one snitch is fair and is about winning by a few points. Hilarious, rowling doesn't understand sports and nor do people like you.
@harish123az There is no need for personal attacks. I have played many sports. The main problem with your argument is that you are comparing a "once in a lifetime" event with an event that is guaranteed to occur in every match. You know one of the teams will get the 150 points in every match. So, if you know the opposing team has you outmatched on offense, and I running up the score. You are better off catching the snitch to close the point differentials, end the game, and lose by a small margin to save the season standings than it is to risk losing by a significantly larger margin and doom the entire season chances.
@@aubreybrackett7653 1) is it really a personal attack to claim you know nothing about sports based on your very own comments and reasoning? I dont think so, its fairly apparent what your sports interest and knowledge is!
2) A 15 to 1 advantage is too large for any other player or teams to focus on anything but their seeker. if a position had 15 to 1 advantage all teams would focus on that position (seeker) and ignore anything else
I have to make another personal comment, but you are equally bad at maths as sports, a 15 to 1 advantage is HUGE and mostly insurmountable..
@@aubreybrackett7653 Show me proof that quidditch team reached 150 every match
and 2) even if they did, arent you proving my point? the entire 6 member team can reach 150 by huffing and puffing and the seeker can reach that by one move? Dont you see the sheer lunacy of this?
You keep talking about honorable defeat where seekers catch while being 150+ behind but ignore that in 99.9% matches seekers can just catch the snitch and win and the six other players DONT MATTER? Have you seen ANY sports with such lopsided results and when one player is worth 15 of others
I will repeat, those who defend quidditch are those who have never played any sport or those who have never even followed sports or really low IQ people!
@harish123az Again, you do not understand. The snitch is historically very difficult to catch, with a famous match lasting 3 months. So, a team could designate their entire team to catch the snitch. However, only the seeker can catch the snitch. This would be very dumb, as you would allow the opposing team to score exceptionally quickly. They could easily run up a score beyond what the snitch would hope to award you.
As soon as a team scores, the quaffle is handed to the keeper. The quaffle is immediately in play after the opposing teams' chasers and keeper return to their side of the pitch. The opposing teams' beaters are not required to return to their side of the pitch. So, 2 beaters are just waiting to clobber the unprotected keeper, letting the seekers quickly get possession of the quaffle. They would easily outscore the snitch value in a matter of minutes.
The time travel stuff itself isn't the only thing that makes no sense in Looper. What about the stupid plot device that they have to send people to the past to get murdered because it is so hard to get rid of bodies in the future?
That is so stupid, it hurts.
How’s it stupid? No body, no murder.
Especially since they accidentally killed Bruce Willis' wife. If they can kill her and get away with it, why not the others?
Christopher Reeve's Superman killed Zod, too. At least the newer had a reason: to stop him from killing those people. Reeve's had depowered Zod so he wasn't a threat to anyone... and then killed him anyway.
He doesn’t kill him - he just drops him down a tunnel and it doesn’t show you him die. However, there is a deleted scene where you see all 3 kryptonians being led away in handcuffs.
@@daviddawson6150 So... since Lois wasn't in on this "plan," does that make her evil since she punched... uh... whatshername down the same hole without any way of knowing that she'd land safely?
@@Steele42 - At what point is it suggested that Lois intended to punch the woman down the hole? She just punched her, and the woman fell. Essentially, the sliding down the hole thing was designed to just get the defeated bad guys off the screen so they weren’t standing around awkwardly while the scene wrapped up.
@@daviddawson6150 Well, they were all standing on a very narrow ledge. Poking her to the point of movement would have knocked her off. I was always under the impression they were killed as that's the way it looked in theater.
Batman didn’t kill his enemies, seeing as they kill themselves in the end
Yeah, did they even watch the movies?
Signs wasn't about aliens, it was about Demons. Bo is mentioned as an "angel" when she was born, and thus she is inadvertently leaving "holy water" around the house and that's why the demon is injured by it.
The alien's gestation period is exactly as long as the chestburster decides it is. Shit was settled in the lore over 30 years ago.
Like the host (Briefly) found alive just as the marines were passing through the xenomorph hive.
I suspect they've never read any of the lore. 😅
Is the "lore" the movies or comics/books?
@@jamesianhutchison1165 I suspect they've never watched any of these movies, most of the time!
@@garretthendricks6350 Comics/books and arguably in the movies throughout the franchise. It's mentioned that the greatest screw-up during one outbreak was assuming the gestation time would limit the spread. The first queen had matured in weeks, but as more appeared they figured out that the gestation period was exactly as long as they decided, and coincidentally that was fairly consistent throughout the movies, starting with Aliens, where the bursting happens when the marines show up in the hive and interact with the host (posing an immediate danger to it), and twice in Alien 3, first when the host is left unsupervised and later the moment Ripley yeets herself into the furnace (again, immediate danger). Resurrection leaves it unclear for most hosts, but one host has his burst when he's shot (immediate danger), and in AvP & AvP2 the gestation period is seemingly as short as possible, except for the impregnated predator, which the chestburster first seemingly uses to get onto the ship and then bursts out of after being left alone. At some point it's going to start to sound stupid to just write it off as accidental inconsistency or coincidence.
Superman is supposed to represent who we want to be. Batman represents who we are.
Billionaire crime fighting playboy?
I think you live a more exciting life than me...
Looper's biggest flaw: They kill his wife in the future.
If the entire premise of the movie is that you can't kill people in the future as you will be immediately discovered, why would the criminal organization try to kill Bruce Willis in the future but then satisfy themselves with killing his wife.
If killing a criminal is too terrible, how could killing an innocent be considered okay?
The fact immediately destroys the entire plotline for the film.
(I still love it, though)
My Quidditch scoring issue: the scores are 10x higher than needed. They could just take the 0 off, and the rules would make more sense right away, especially for those still understanding numbers/math- as it's easier to compare 17 to 1+15 than 170 to 10+150 before learning multiplication to understand that you can just take away a 0 and be able to tell how many scores they are apart. That was the World Cup score that couldn't fit in the Goblet of Fire movie, but it's the closest end score in the series I believe.
(I know inflating the numbers can make it seem more intense, but I was 9 when the first film came out and the only thing that seemed to matter was the Snitch only because of the "you catch this, and we win" line. So I didn't care to try to understand why they were going for goals)
I thought with Looper... when the younger version kills himself, the gold given to the mother should have disappeared too.
"The first two rules make perfectly simple sense."
Does the water one make sense, though? Do they not drink water? Weren't gremlins drinking at the bar? Aside from this, the movie is taking place during Christmas with snow all over.
maybe the alchol doesnt trigger the shift? Just as well else the bar would have been overrun. Maybe they dont drink it, they have to be touched by it. Questions that needed to be asked when filming, I guess.
There are actually lots of animals that don't drink water: greater roadrunner, camel, sidewinder, desert iguana, Australian thorny devil, desert tortoise, Fennec fox, kangaroo rat and prairie dog are examples. They get their water from their food (be it plants or animals). Aside from it being an 80's movie, I'd say probably being _soaked_ would be more accurate. Most furry animals are protected from snow, while water would soak & bother them.
Think I have only seen Double Jeopardy once.
Someone refresh my memory: do circumstances make it unfeasible for Libby to prove that her allegedly slain husband and her living target are the same man? Seems like the smartest course.
No, She was convicted on circumstantial evidence and the amount of blood from the scene. His blood will still likely be held from the case and DNA was a thing at the time, she can easily prove they are the same person. Even if that wasn't the case dental and medical records could also be used. In addition to the DNA of their son being used to identify her husband as the father. Multiple convenient ways to establish her former husband's identity
first class is the best xmen film, and my favorite in the series .
After birthing during Kane's last meal, how did the alien gain the body mass large enough to carry Brett into the overhead one, max two, days later? Whattz it been eating???
I always thought the same thing about Pitch Black -- what in the world were they eating to have so many and grow so large?!
@@SteveMoncuse I got the feeling they were eating each other in the caves til they were finally able to break out, thats why there were so many weird skeletons around.
The Xenomorph got into the crew's food rations and ate them all, that's how it got so big so quickly. Hope this helps. Also, I have to check out this "Pitch Black" movie y'all are talking about now, sounds cool ❤
In Signs, it was alluded to that the little girl was tasting/sensing something in the water. She always called it "contaminated". So I don't believe it was water in general, but "something" in the water.
So...fluoride?
Some fan theories about Signs are that the aliens are actually demons, not aliens.
I saw that from many comments above yours. IMO that's fans trying to justify the water controversy, not something that was meant by the filmmakers of the original. Since this is a science fiction film, it wouldn't be hard to create a biology that explains why liquid water is traumatic to aliens but gaseous H2O is not. After all, even though water is water, salt water fish cannot survive in fresh water, and vice versa. If aliens saw a movie about fish, they could find it preposterous that fish can live in only one type of water.
Another thing about Quiddich: Does their "1900's" style padding actually protect the broom riders from falls from such heights? (I really don't know, only seen a couple of the movies and haven't read the books)
You would think everyone would be fitted with a 'Feather Fall' spell or something should they get knocked off their broom, but it seems in line with all the other Horrors Hogwarts ignores (Giant Man Eating Intelligent Spiders in the woods just outside the school? Don't worry about it! 😅)
Signs is a crisis of faith story where God saves the world with a miracle, it is not as science fiction movie. The whole story is Father Graham losing his faith in God and quitting the church after his wife dies. When things get bad enough he finally turns back to God and begins to pray and then the miracle happens. It takes place in the same fictional universe where lambs blood on your door saves you from death and water turns into wine and a man built a boat big enough for two of every animal.
There have been quite a few characters that have gone against the Rule of Two, and it isn't uncommon for the Apprentice to begin training one of their own before finally confronting their Master. Bane's own Apprentice, Zannah, was ready to take over, but put that on hold until she could find an Apprentice of her own. Her eventual Apprentice, Cognus, lost her Apprentice to defection. Palpatine trained Maul as an assassin until he killed Plagious, Tyrannus trained Ventris similar to Maul until his loyalty was called into question, and Palpatine abandoned the Rule of Two altogether after Vader's physical crippling and mental issues became a liability.
Palpatine only abandons the rule of two if you consider Disney's rubbish cannon. But to be fair sith lord and sith assassins or acolytes are 2 different things
Bruce didn't kill Al Ghul. "I won't kill you.. but i don't have to save you." What a great moment.
People just need to nitpick on Signs. Ok, there is water in the atmosphere, but if you stand outside on a sunny day do you get wet? No. That answers the question on why they weren't bothered by it until they had direct contact with it. And just for fun, Why did they pick a planet covered in water? One easy answer is they were not planning on moving in. Just stripping it for resources. People do it all the time. As long as you are over here you are fine, but if you go over there it could kill you.
For the most part this list makes sense. Anything dealing with time travel is a guessing game since it's not actually possible. So trying to find logic in a fantasy situation is practically impossible. And the superheroes no killing rule makes perfect sense, it's just hard to adhere to it perfectly as in some cases, you might not have a choice.
I think it's the fluoride in our water pipes meant for mind control which the aliens weren't expecting
except if that the case why no space suits. We spend billion of dollars creating space suits for our astronaut but they dont for theirs?
um, I guess you haven't visited Texas, because the answer is yes. You do get wet. It is 89% humidity right now.
@@Ceares I was born in Miami where that is the norm. You are not getting wet due to the atmosphere. You are sweating. There is a difference.
Signs was imho badly explained but osmotic pressure would make sense .
Like a sea fish in a lake...
Let's not forget about all the dew on the corn that the aliens run through. Also despite it never raining in the movie it is still a genuine threat to the aliens. Yet they walk around NAKED of all things.
Thank you so much for speaking like a HUMAN ❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️😋❕️❗️
Speaking of water...Jason Voorhees spends an awful lot of time in and under water for a guy who’s supposedly terrified of, and incapacitated by water, as he was during his face-off with Freddy Krueger.
The water weakness was also present in the Alien Nation movies but that was salt water, not fresh and even when they were living in LA which is apparently closer to the ocean than other states, they still developed a rash til their bodies got used to the salt air. This is an example of a water weakness done right. Signs was an example of doing it wrong.
I don't think it was salt water per say but sodium the Tenctonese had an averse effect to.
Personal head canon; its the same with Death Angels in a Quiet Place, another monster with a questionable water weakness. When we see one of them clawing a ship after jumping into sea water it probably feels likes its drowning in bleach.
I always thought that the rules of quidditch were the most nonsensical things I have ever heard. Basically, it means that the rest of the team isn't really needed. The other players can just let the two seekers chase that stupid snitch around the field while they sit in the stands and eat hot dogs.
The beat explanation I have found us the more points your team has the slower the snitch moves for your team.
To be fair to the Potter filmmakers, they inherited the Quidditch nonsense from Rowling in the books.
Similarly, the No Kill rule for many superheroes is strongly rooted in their comic book origins. In this case though, it's much more complex than it's portrayed here, with both narrative and meta-narrative reasons to include that as a character aspect.
In the alien franchise, I always thought the biggest problem was their acid blood. What type of acid was it and what was it about their body chemistry that meant they didn't get dissolved? Was it fluoroantimonic acid and their blood vessels made of teflon?
to be fair, human bodies have a nature defence against stomach acid. Without it, the acid would dissolve us in just days
@@Sarappreciatesjust a lipid coating would be sufficient.
Their blood only turns into that corrosive substance when it mixes with air
Or perhaps their blood doesn't become acidic until exposed to air.
Well, acids can be contained in glass…
Your stomach has acids in it that would eat through all the organs around it, except the pepsin coating inside the stomach stops that from happening so it could be the lining of the blood vessels etc
X-2 boom
It's individuals like Gareth that are attempting to ruin fantasy cinema for everyone, trying to put logic where logic doesn't belong. Movies are fantasy, Gareth. They don't have to make sense. You accept everything else fantasy about the movie, but have to nit-pick certain details? That's being rather hypocritical don't ya think?
"Star Trek" into darkness was not Star Trek. J. J. Abrams is a hack. Get rid of Abrams' loathsome universe and Trekdom improves dramatically. I give you a thumbs-down for daring to reference it AS Star Trek rather than as crap.
In signs how could advance aliens who came across the stars to earth not get thru a flimsy door? HUMMMM????????
I've had the Quidditch discussion before with friends. Harry's success in the movies tends to skew the obvious. Catching a snitch should be damn near impossible. Making the pursuit of it practically irrelevant. Honestly "Seeker" should be the job you put the least talented player on. :)
Even "children" being as small as they are at 12 to 15 could in no way ever hope to catch a magical hummingbird that can literally fly in any direction and turn instantaneously. At any point in Chamber of Secrets that snitch could have gone in any spherical direction. Harry simply reaching forward for it would have no hope of catching it. And it is silly that the snitch would just fly in a straight line, in hopes of just being faster.
In the 1000 years that Hogwarts has been open, logically, maybe 6 people could have "lucked" into catching one. As silly as it is to apply physics to Quidditch, inertia and G forces would literally prevent a human from catching a snitch. Ever.
As much as the wizarding world is lacking in logic, enchanting the snitch to be nigh impossible to catch would be stupid even for them..
@@volentimeh I'm not saying they enchanted them "specifically" to make it impossible. It would seem that they enchanted them to be a hummingbird or dragonfly. And while yes, both of those species have predators. Their predators aren't 80 lbs. children flying on magical pieces of wood. 🤣
Inertia is a thing. In a drag race, sure, Harry's probably going to win. As would anyone with a good broom. But agility and turning ability are what should make it "almost" impossible to catch one. 😉
I am sorry but 10 interrupting ads is too much. I can't spend my life watching one video.
Two things: The Alien gestation period really came into play in "Aliens" when Larry's chestburster came out exactly when it was needed, and the "No Kill" rule is honestly quite stupid, because, as far as I'm concerned, it's not the act of killing itself, but the reason behind the killing that separates hero from villain!
I don't know how you define heroes, but I see no heroism in killing irrespective of the reason. Reasons are always subjective and there can be arguably better alternatives. Heroism should be in overcoming fears & obstacles and saving.
@@mollywoodshots6503 Agree to disagree!
@@mollywoodshots6503 The example given of Henry Cavil's Superman - was he wrong to kill Zod, what would have happened if he didn't? What was Zod planning on doing, and would never stop - so yes Killing can be justified in some cases, depending on the reasoning behind it.
@@rianmacdonald9454 There are several ways in which he could have incapacitated or immobilized Zod. That situation was written like that for plot convenience only.
WRT _Signs_ , why don't advanced aliens, capable of interstellar flight, ever wear clothes?? Some waterproof uniforms might have proved useful when attacking a water-logged planet. Humans stopped fighting naked back in the stone age!
About Gremlins. If you read the book, you will read about the police asking just that question.
37.5 million gallons of water in the air for the entire planet at any given time sounded way, WAY, WAAAAAAY too low to me. So I went down a rabbit hole for anyone who cares. That number should be more like 22.3 quadrillion gallons of water in the air, considering an average planet-wide humidity of 2-3%. Sorry to nitpick, but that original number is so far off that I couldn't help myself. Captain Buzzkill OUT!
Terminator and the Kyle Reese statement "nobody comes, no body goes back"
Transformers and the spark of life that was the very last piece in the Universe...oh! I hada a little more at home
In general, Star Wars use of the Force, specially with the Jedi. Sometimes they look awesome powerful and other like kids playing at the yard. When fighting against Darth Moul in the Phanton Menace, Obi Wan jumps about 60 feet to catch with Qui-Gon Jinn. After that he runs like me when I hear a fly. Earlier, about the beginning, when they are attacked by droideka, they both run like Steve Austin
In Clone Wars Yoda seems to struggle to avoid Obi Wan been crushed by a big piece of metal. In The Empire Strikes Back he said: size matters not
Not getting the gremlins wet made no sense either, they were able to stand in snow which is made of water yet nothing happened when they did
If you are talking about the clip outside that mad lady's house, they were also wearing clothes, perhaps it protected them from active contact? It has to be skin to water contact.
What confused me the most was Alien 4. How did they get the DNA material of an infected Ripley, WITH the chestburster still inside her to clone her multiple times?
Even if they got Ripley's DNA, I don't think the chestburster's DNA would hitch a ride on it. That's not how that works
Batman's no kill policy never made any sense to me, especially because of Arkham Asylum's apparent revolving door confinement actions
Joker would escape from Arkham asylum, he kills a number of people, Batman catches him and sends him back to Arkham
Riddler escapes from Arkham asylum, he kills a number of people, Batman catches him and sends him back to Arkham
Mr. Freeze escapes from Arkham asylum, he kills a number of people, Batman catches him and sends him back to Arkham
Ad Infinitum
First off, why is it that they only go to this particular asylum? Is there no other facilities to take them? Maybe a REAL prison?
Does this mean that EVERY SINGKE major criminal in Gotham is mentally insane
Why, if Batman has a no kill policy, doesn't Gotham have capital punishment? Especially considering that they constantly kill people in VERY gruesome ways
Batman never made sense to me because of this
The Rule of Two is associated with how the Force follows the "path of least resistance" during Imbalance - thus, "once you strike down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!". You get pulled in to Sith ways if you even dabble in the Dark Side. And similarly, you won't be inventing any magics that are notin dominant patterns, (Jedi) or (Sith). Sith Lords used it to draw more power to themselves. Regular Sith are just dynamos in this context - still illegal in most of the galaxy, but ultimately a matter for regular police forces, not the Jedi.
STAR TREK reboot travel times
5 mins Earth to Vulcan?
2 mins Kronos to earth?
moon to earth using just gravity 15 mins?
Superman has killed several times. He killed Darkseid, the Joker, & doctor light. He even killed batman, the Flash, and Wonder Woman. Read comics, or don't pretend to read comics. Your not hip.
Aliens incubation period may depend on a lot of things, how much the host is eating, the host’s original physical health condition, the aliens genetical make up, it can be many things. It still makes some what sense.
I would also add the "kill the queen, stop the invasion" nonsense - it's just lazy and stupid, and no actual species works like that. If you kill an ant or bee queen, they just create another and all the other ants and bees don't just drop dead in the meantime. I'm pretty sure that advanced alien civilizations would also understand the concepts of redundancy and single point of failure - looking at you, _Battle: Los Angeles_ , _Ender's Game_ , _Edge of Tomorrow_ etc. Oddly enough, the film with the most insect like aliens, _Starship Troopers_ , didn't have this silly trope.
Into Darkness, The Rise of Skywalker, and every X-Men movie after Days of Future Past (except Logan) were all terrible movies. Nothing in them made any sense.
I think Looper follows Back to the Future time travel rules, which I sometimes refer to as Buffering.
You change the past it has a ripple effect into the future. How quickly the ripple travels depends on how major of a change is made.
I don't think it makes much sense but it's a version of Time Travel Rules.
My biggest peeve was the blank fax at the end of the BTTF trilogy. Thematically, it was a nice little message, but it completely violated the rules established in all the films.
Honourable mention to that Sandra Bullock/Julian McMahon film where the little girl's face wasn't cut up on a day when it was supposed to have been.
the gestation period of a xenomorph is a few hours. all alien movies after aliens are non-canon. i don’t wanna hear it, they all suck outside of the first 2 so you can just ignore them.
The "Don't expose the creature to water" rule is utterly stupid because water is the basis of any complex lifeform. Even protozoons like bacteria need water to function. The Mogwai is clearly a multi-cellular organism with body liquids (based on water) and a metabolism that needs water to work. Everything he eats and the air he breathes contain water. The Wicked Witch being killed with water in The Wizard Of Oz is an exeption because it happened in Dorothy's dream, and dreams don't need to make sense.
10/10 video just for pronouncing Ras Al Ghul correctly 👏👏👏
It's been, well, the early 1970's since I last read it, but the Star Fleet Technical Manual had a chapter covering various Starfleet regulations and UFP laws, including the Prime Directive. It read like an actual legal document for the most part so was eye wateringly boring to a young teen! But the Prime Directive was detailed there. How well? I honestly don't remember.
In the tv series Space Above and Beyond, they give an alien some water and it dies as a result. So Signs wasn't using an original idea there.
The rules of Quidditch make perfect sense when you consider how bonkers the wizarding society is and how they constantly put the preference in unfair advantages. The only thing that really makes no sense is that they basically only have one sport when logically they should have dozens. Sure, Quidditch is the equivalent of soccer, but where are the equivalents of golf, tennis or boxing? Even their equivalent of chess is just chess but with sentient pieces.
The whole quidditch Game makes No sense. It's Just two Players chasing the Snitch.
Everything Else only Matters when that Game ends in a Draw.
my issue with Man of Steel was the sloppy collateral damage... not very "superman"...
Signs was rewritten by producers in post-production - these were supposed to be demons and it was holy water because the daughter was blessing it... believe me- it almost hurts to defend such a myopic filmmaker as Shamalyan, but this was actually not holy his fault...
Quidditch
With Quidditch and the Seeker position, there is a fan theory that when the game was invented brooms were a lot slower, making it a lot harder for the seekers to actually catch the snitch. That would mean the games were on average a lot longer, meaning the rest of the teams can make a lot more points and the 150 points might no longer have such a large impact. With wizards being slow to accept change, they do not update the rules even when the change in equipment would make it necessary.
Rule of Two
Probably by now something from legends and technically no longer canon, I hope I remember everything right. At the point in time when Sidious is the master, the rule of two has been corrupted and Sidious and his master before him were kind of only paying lipservice to it. The idea is that with only one master there wouldn't be any conflicts of interest with other masters and that master is pursuing a goal for the Sith in general, not for himself. In a way they are more or less supposed to act selfless in that endeavor and train their apprentice to the best of their abilities and when the time comes accept their death when their apprentice has overcome them.
With Darth Bane who started that order, if I'm not mistaken he was killed by his apprentice in a fair fight, no backstabbing or anything, so his apprentice truly proved to be stronger. With Plagueis, he wanted to end the rule of two, that's why he researched how the force could heal and create life, he died when Sidious stabbed him in the back in a moment of weakness.
The actual Rule of Two has something of a Jedi like mentality to being Sith.
Aliens in Signs
The aliens are actually demons and the water in the house is blessed and that's why they are affected like this, because it's holy water. That's why the aliens are rather low tech and you never actually see any ships. It also fits with the religious theme around Mel Gibson's character.
Comics characters don't age much in the comics - why would they in the movies? In the comics most of the X-men are in their 30's despite the original title being launched in the late 1960's.
I never understood why magician battles in Harry Potter were just like gun fights with wands shooting like guns- no very magical like. I think the Magicians series did magic better.
Rule of two was made by the Sith, who aren’t known for caring about rules. Also, Batman hasn’t killed anyone, he just did some things and the people died by coincidence
The no kill rule. Go back to Nolans batman begins. Batman tells ras he won't kill him. But he doesn't have to save him either. Batman doesn't willingly kill. But sometimes things happen. Ben afflecks Batman was a killer. He completely changed the darknights canon.
When it comes to aliens I'm willing to give a little bit of a benefit of the doubt since it appears that they are in an engineered species. I would guess different iterations have different gestation
mogwai don't care about clocks. they are answerable to the sun. midnight is the actual mid point between sunset and sunrise.
good luck with keeping track of that.
Why didn't acid blood "Alien" make the list. First movie: a little cut on a face hugger threatens the ship. Aliens: blow a couple to smithereens, and it's all good?
The Prime Directive is an ethical guideline, sort of like having a code of ethics for doctors or lawyers, and was given an origin based on Enterprise (series) and the Vulcans, although this isn't explicitly stated. It is easy to see how they progress to that view, living by that guideline as they explore further and further out and meet people who they end up harming or possibly doing harm to, and some more advanced people who harm or could harm them by interference. It is also easy to see how such a guideline could have some gray area. Picard was one of the strongest adherents to the Prime Directive, but he definitely breaks it to save Wesley in the first season.
I saw Signs in a movie theater. The twist ending was such a rip-off of an iconic film which does not suck, that I almost started yelling out, "I'm melting! I'm melting!"
You make a really good point about Signs, but one of the fan theories is that they were demons, hence it was HOLY WATER that was burning them, as he was a priest.
I hurt watching the movie. It wasn’t supposed to even be about about aliens. It was about a man losing his faith in God and then regaining back. Im an atheist, yet I can still appreciate the message behind this movie. He should have used something besides water, a little ridiculous. But if you don’t think about about water it’s a pretty good message. He’s just dumb.
The aliens in Signs would most likely want to take the risk of invading the Earth for harvesting because resources are scarce in the galaxy. Earth would be a prize for alien species (we would do the same if we could travel the stars).
Yeah, let's narrow our numbers down to just two Sith Lords...
How did they "fix it" to make it wven more stupid?
One thing about Ellen Ripley and her chest burster not following the gestation period, is she was impregnated in a stasis chamber and was in that chamber at the beginning of the film (if I am wrong PLEASE correct me as it has been a while since I have seen that Alien film, I mostly watch the first 2)
The rule of two theres only ever 1 master and apprentice. The apprentice is always trying to kill his master taking his spot thus opening up another apprentice spot which can be filled by someone pre selected like starkiller. The people on exogal and the inquisitors are part of the sith empire but are not sith themselves. The people on exogal would be the equivalent of a person working as a janitor in the jedi temple. Darth maul was supposed to be just a kind of throw away assassin (basically what general Greivious was) however when Sidious manged to kill his master thus taking the master spot maul was elevated to apprentice rank until his defeat by by obiwan
This is about the quality of video i expect from gareth. This is why i stopped watching whatculture videos.
The aliens in Signs are demons, not aliens; the water is holy in a priest's house. The whole film is a Christian redemption story, It's reasonably obvious, you just have to look for the signs :)
When it comes to Sign, the alien theory is the redirect from a non-secular take at face value, but it's a movie about a man's lost faith and going by the religious angle, the water was blessed by his daughter. Not aliens but demon. I'm not even a religious person but viewing it from that angle changes the movie and doesn't take away from it.