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.
"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.
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.
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...
But in different parts of the world the sun never sets or never rises, in some seasons. Which a curtain religion have a problem with since it’s invented in an area where that never happens. But the short answer is don’t have a Mogwai during those months.
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.
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. 🤓
@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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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.
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! 😅)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
In The Terminator, when Rhys is being interrogated by the police, he says that only living tissue can go through the time machine, yeah, they cover that one up (literally by having the T101 surrounded by living tissue, but it completely blows T2 & T3 out of the water.
Skynet figured out a way to get liquid metamorphic metal through the machine, either by upgrading the machine to do so or somehow mimicking living tissue to trick the machine It's science fiction
@@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”
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
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)
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.
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.
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
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 ❤
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.
Imagine thinking "A pool of bleach? That's dangerous I won't touch it. But that area over there where the bleach is aresolized? Perfectly safe. I'll go right in."
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.
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
Harry Potter was a shitty story written by a woman who wasn't a writer for her kids as a bed time story, and yet for some reason adults have decided to spend decades obsessing over it, and wonder why it doesn't make sense...
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.
8:54 I've felt that the writers took the Rule of Two to mean there was a quota system for the Sith, which actually would weaken them if it worked the way the writers interpreted, since they could never grow their numbers, and would always be on the verge of being wiped out. When I first hear of it, I believe the phrasing was "There are always two, the Master and the Apprentice," and I took it to mean that no Sith acted alone: The Sith you see is the Apprentice, doing the Master's bidding while the Master stays in the shadows, not revealing themself unless the time is right and their plan calls for it. And if a Master reveals themself, it would mean that either the Jedi have walked into the precise location for a trap, or the Master is under orders from HIS Master. I've also thought that a Sith Master might have more than one Apprentice at a time; and the Apprentices stay in the shadows, training competing, and jockeying for position until one is called up for a mission. ONly a foolish Master would bring two Apprentices on a mission: their rivalry means that they would sabotage each other's efforts and put the whole plan in jeopardy.
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.
8:24 It prevents a person from being convicted twice for the same event (barring cases where a crime breaks both State and Federal statues; as long as the statutes are different, such as the Federal level charging for Murder, and the State level charging for 'Hate Crime,' then the single event, which from these examples would be killing a minority in a VERY disrespectful way, (crucifying a Jew? Lynching a Black person?), creates two separate crimes), but it's MAIN purpose is to prevent 'jury shopping,' retrying a person who has been found innocent in the hopes of getting a guilty verdict the second time around.
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.
If Formula 1 drivers can all use their own modified cars, then why can't students use their own brooms in Quidditch? The air is full of CO2 which is toxic to humans, but we still breath it as it's mixed with oxygen, so it's logical that the aliens in Signs could cope with any discomfort since, as the film states, they came to earth to harvest humans for food and were therefore desperate.
It also makes no sense that the Alien grows from a chestburster to a 8 feet tall monster within a few hours, especially without food, like in the case of the first one on board of the Nostromo.
The part that annoyed me in looper was that they never confirmed in any way if Kid Blue was Abe. The way the movie is written and acted it definitely feels like that's where the story was headed but like it got lost in the script rewrites somewhere so you have all the hints building it up with no pay off.
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.
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.
No kill policy is obviously not followed by members of the Avengers. In Civil War, Cap hits several average people in the head with his shield and kicks a truck into another. You could argue Cap knows what he's doing, but an indestructible object even being deflected before hitting a normal human in the skull definitely has to cause fatal damage to the skull
I love the movie "Signs" but I did notice the thing about the water too. I grew up in the country and I've run through many a corn field as a kid. They are heavy with dew especially in morning and night. The first alien spotting is in a cornfield. They would have been soaked. I thought, "Oh, well. That's why they call it 'science fiction'.
How did What Culture miss the true story about signs? And in Star Wars, Palpatine purposefully rejected the rule of two. It had been in effect for a thousand years.
In alien 3, Ripley’s alien took so long to gestate because the doctor kept giving her a sedative cocktails. Once the doctor died Ripley’s alien completed its gestating later that same day.
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.
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.
What if the aliens in Signs consider the Earth a dangerous weapons deposit? The aliens might just be checking the place out and the ones you see are like a survey expedition.
That rule in gremlins where it says about not getting them wet or they will multiply that doesn’t seem to apply to booze or chicken soup and they can bury themselves in snow without Multiplying.
7:30 I was taking Criminal Justice classes when 'Double Jeopardy' came out. Me, taking Criminal Justice 101 and higher knew the movie was wrong. 2 of my professors were really annoyed at that movie and explained how it was wrong.
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)
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.
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!"
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.
Outcome of the World Cup match in Goblet of Fire: Ireland is beating Bulgaria by hundreds of points, so Viktor rushes the snitch to end it. Outcome in the movie: indeterminate.
It still doesnt make any sense in the books either. Whenever I see such arguments supporting quiddtich I know the person has never played any sport in their life and dont even follow one You casually mention 15 to 1, but do you you know how much of an advantage 15 to 1 goal is? When Brazil lost 7 to 1, it was considered an ultimate humiliation and once in a lifetime event. and you are speaking about more than double that No sports allows a 15 to 1 advantage, a 15 to 1 advantage makes all other players useless Rowling clearly doesnt understand sports but so do people like you
I've always had an annoyance with almost all space traveling societies that have not advanced past the chair to the seat belt making battles or any bump in the cosmic road a real problem.
or if they said don't feed them after the sun goes down, or don't feed them from sundown to sunup, or even from 12:00AM to 12:00PM. that last one is what i would have gone with.
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
10:26 Leaving somebody to die by their own wvil machinations is not you killing them. You could argue it is still immoral, but not every immoral act is equivalent to killing.
In double jeopardy her husband is a criminal fugitive and a known dangerous scumbag who the system would not care if anyone killed him. And since his wife didn't kill him, lawyers need not be drawn into this mess.
The "Rule of Two" is the best piece of misinformation the Sith ever sold to the Jedi
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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 😂
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
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)
But in different parts of the world the sun never sets or never rises, in some seasons. Which a curtain religion have a problem with since it’s invented in an area where that never happens. But the short answer is don’t have a Mogwai during those months.
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 ....
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.
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.
🤓
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
signs
alien masters "we won we have conquered Earth"
Alien race "fine mate, you effing stay there sounds like hell to us"
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! 😅)
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...
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
Batman didn’t kill his enemies, seeing as they kill themselves in the end
Yeah, did they even watch the movies?
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.
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.
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.
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.
In The Terminator, when Rhys is being interrogated by the police, he says that only living tissue can go through the time machine, yeah, they cover that one up (literally by having the T101 surrounded by living tissue, but it completely blows T2 & T3 out of the water.
His name was Reese, not Rhys.
Skynet figured out a way to get liquid metamorphic metal through the machine, either by upgrading the machine to do so or somehow mimicking living tissue to trick the machine
It's science fiction
Time machine got upgraded, too?
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.
Signs was imho badly explained but osmotic pressure would make sense .
Like a sea fish in a lake...
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
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
Bruce didn't kill Al Ghul. "I won't kill you.. but i don't have to save you." What a great moment.
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)
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.
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.
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
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 ❤
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.
Imagine thinking "A pool of bleach? That's dangerous I won't touch it. But that area over there where the bleach is aresolized? Perfectly safe. I'll go right in."
I thought with Looper... when the younger version kills himself, the gold given to the mother should have disappeared too.
About Gremlins. If you read the book, you will read about the police asking just that question.
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?
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
I've always called quidditch "a game where two people play a game that matters and bunch of other people play a game that doesn't" XD
In Gremins you don't get them wet or the reproduce. Feeding them after midnight is vague but that is to prevent the metamorphosis to Gremins.
Harry Potter was a shitty story written by a woman who wasn't a writer for her kids as a bed time story, and yet for some reason adults have decided to spend decades obsessing over it, and wonder why it doesn't make sense...
Maybe it should be “don’t feed them after sunset”
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.
8:54 I've felt that the writers took the Rule of Two to mean there was a quota system for the Sith, which actually would weaken them if it worked the way the writers interpreted, since they could never grow their numbers, and would always be on the verge of being wiped out.
When I first hear of it, I believe the phrasing was "There are always two, the Master and the Apprentice," and I took it to mean that no Sith acted alone: The Sith you see is the Apprentice, doing the Master's bidding while the Master stays in the shadows, not revealing themself unless the time is right and their plan calls for it. And if a Master reveals themself, it would mean that either the Jedi have walked into the precise location for a trap, or the Master is under orders from HIS Master.
I've also thought that a Sith Master might have more than one Apprentice at a time; and the Apprentices stay in the shadows, training competing, and jockeying for position until one is called up for a mission. ONly a foolish Master would bring two Apprentices on a mission: their rivalry means that they would sabotage each other's efforts and put the whole plan in jeopardy.
In Alien3 doesn't Ripley have the Xenomorph in her chest frozen to delay it's arrival?
Thank you so much for speaking like a HUMAN ❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️❗️❕️😋❕️❗️
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.
Funny thing about the golden snitch is that it actually ends the game, so they have to catch it.
8:24 It prevents a person from being convicted twice for the same event (barring cases where a crime breaks both State and Federal statues; as long as the statutes are different, such as the Federal level charging for Murder, and the State level charging for 'Hate Crime,' then the single event, which from these examples would be killing a minority in a VERY disrespectful way, (crucifying a Jew? Lynching a Black person?), creates two separate crimes), but it's MAIN purpose is to prevent 'jury shopping,' retrying a person who has been found innocent in the hopes of getting a guilty verdict the second time around.
It's insane people automatically cry hate crime and racism just cause of the skin colour of a criminal.
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.
If Formula 1 drivers can all use their own modified cars, then why can't students use their own brooms in Quidditch?
The air is full of CO2 which is toxic to humans, but we still breath it as it's mixed with oxygen, so it's logical that the aliens in Signs could cope with any discomfort since, as the film states, they came to earth to harvest humans for food and were therefore desperate.
So desperate, that they couldn't even afford clothes, apparently!
@@anthonyalles1833 yeah, with their space travel technology you'd think they would've had protective suits as well.
It also makes no sense that the Alien grows from a chestburster to a 8 feet tall monster within a few hours, especially without food, like in the case of the first one on board of the Nostromo.
I think they grow by absorbing atmosphere into themselves by osmosis
Didn't the first one break into the food stores onboard?
The part that annoyed me in looper was that they never confirmed in any way if Kid Blue was Abe. The way the movie is written and acted it definitely feels like that's where the story was headed but like it got lost in the script rewrites somewhere so you have all the hints building it up with no pay off.
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.
The amount of water in the Earth's atmosphere was off by a factor of a billion.
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.
No kill policy is obviously not followed by members of the Avengers. In Civil War, Cap hits several average people in the head with his shield and kicks a truck into another. You could argue Cap knows what he's doing, but an indestructible object even being deflected before hitting a normal human in the skull definitely has to cause fatal damage to the skull
Not to mention how many Germans he killed during The First Avenger and I dont think he had his special shield yet.
In X-Men they conveniently completely forget Wolverine’s super senses whenever it’s convenient to the plot.
I love the movie "Signs" but I did notice the thing about the water too. I grew up in the country and I've run through many a corn field as a kid. They are heavy with dew especially in morning and night. The first alien spotting is in a cornfield. They would have been soaked. I thought, "Oh, well. That's why they call it 'science fiction'.
It's a miracle from God when the former priest starts to pray, it's not science
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.
How did What Culture miss the true story about signs?
And in Star Wars, Palpatine purposefully rejected the rule of two. It had been in effect for a thousand years.
In alien 3, Ripley’s alien took so long to gestate because the doctor kept giving her a sedative cocktails. Once the doctor died Ripley’s alien completed its gestating later that same day.
Seeing as midnight is the first moment of the day, the rule blatantly forbids you from feeding mogwai at all.
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.
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.
What if the aliens in Signs consider the Earth a dangerous weapons deposit? The aliens might just be checking the place out and the ones you see are like a survey expedition.
The protagonist of _Double Jeopardy_ wasn't paroled, she escaped!!
She was on parole, but she was paroled to a halfway house.
whoever writes these Gareth ones is not good.
My speculation in alien 3 is the cocktail of medicine she was given 🤔😊
‘Only a Sith deals in absolutes’ is the dumbest rule.
The Jedi make so many absolute statements throughout the franchise.
That rule in gremlins where it says about not getting them wet or they will multiply that doesn’t seem to apply to booze or chicken soup and they can bury themselves in snow without Multiplying.
Robot Chicken explains the Prime directive perfectly
Batman's rule applies to Execution and Murder, he is not responsible if the villain causes their own downfall, which is pretty much all of them
7:30 I was taking Criminal Justice classes when 'Double Jeopardy' came out. Me, taking Criminal Justice 101 and higher knew the movie was wrong. 2 of my professors were really annoyed at that movie and explained how it was wrong.
"The Golden Snitch" is one typo or mispronunciation away from being truly interesting.
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)
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.
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!"
If we don't hold superheroes up to no-kill policy we have the TV show The boys
Aside from midnight itself it's always after midnight.
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.
Outcome of the World Cup match in Goblet of Fire: Ireland is beating Bulgaria by hundreds of points, so Viktor rushes the snitch to end it.
Outcome in the movie: indeterminate.
It still doesnt make any sense in the books either.
Whenever I see such arguments supporting quiddtich I know the person has never played any sport in their life and dont even follow one
You casually mention 15 to 1, but do you you know how much of an advantage 15 to 1 goal is?
When Brazil lost 7 to 1, it was considered an ultimate humiliation and once in a lifetime event. and you are speaking about more than double that
No sports allows a 15 to 1 advantage, a 15 to 1 advantage makes all other players useless
Rowling clearly doesnt understand sports but so do people like you
I've always had an annoyance with almost all space traveling societies that have not advanced past the chair to the seat belt making battles or any bump in the cosmic road a real problem.
The gremlins no feeding at midnight would be fixed if they said, don't feed them after the moon is at its highest peak.
But the moon and nightime are not in any way linked
or if they said don't feed them after the sun goes down, or don't feed them from sundown to sunup, or even from 12:00AM to 12:00PM. that last one is what i would have gone with.
That’s what the animated series explained, “the moon at its highest peak” was the original rule but after centuries it was passed as “after midnight”.
@@Jeshuakun Does it explain why the mogwai exist? Ancient race? Alien? Experiment gone wrong? Curse from the Gods?
@@starscreamthecruel8026yes, it was a test for humanity by a goddess and her brother. We failed 😅
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
first class is the best xmen film, and my favorite in the series .
10:26
Leaving somebody to die by their own wvil machinations is not you killing them. You could argue it is still immoral, but not every immoral act is equivalent to killing.
In double jeopardy her husband is a criminal fugitive and a known dangerous scumbag who the system would not care if anyone killed him. And since his wife didn't kill him, lawyers need not be drawn into this mess.