# Questions about movies you certainly have no intention of seeing **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [May 18, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323 "2011-05-18T14:48:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/101 "2011-05-19T18:45:47Z")
> [@joebuck20](#): > > All right, since we’ve already spoiled “The Village,” can anyone tell me what happens in “The Happening”? Plants start exuding a neurotoxin that causes people to commit suicide. A bunch of people commit suicide. a few run away. There are lots of scenes of people running away from blowing grass and leaves. Then the plants just suddenly, for no reason, go back to normal. Then a couple years later we see trees start twitching agin… ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/102 "2011-05-19T19:46:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Plants start exuding a neurotoxin that causes people to commit suicide. A bunch of people commit suicide. a few run away. There are lots of scenes of people running away from blowing grass and leaves. Then the plants just suddenly, for no reason, go back to normal. > > Then a couple years later we see trees start twitching agin… Was this the movie Al Gore made as a warning? ---
**Author:** ![Dietrich\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@Dietrich\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dietrich_K)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/103 "2011-05-19T19:48:53Z")
> [@Ferret\_Herder](#): > > Worse yet, the village was founded by a group of people who were seeing grief counselors (the guy who got the idea was dealing with the murder of his dad), who apparently decided that modern society sucks rocks and made them all sad, and they should chip in together and make an awesome old-school village to hide away and raise happy kids. I gather that they assumed they’d never produce murderers amongst their own people. (Oops. One of their developmentally-disabled teens stabs a romantic rival out of jealousy, and dresses up as a monster too.) They paid off the government to treat their village and the surrounding woods as a no-fly zone **and** as a super-important wildlife preserve so they wouldn’t encounter outsiders or have planes fly overhead and confuse people. Again: Why is Shyamalan even allowed within twenty feet of a director’s chair these days? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/104 "2011-05-19T19:55:41Z")
Quoth **lost4life** : > [@](#): > > Woah…crucified you say? Yeah, they’re not exactly subtle about it. He’s not nailed to a piece of wood, but the glowy lights special effects are very definitely cross-shaped, and he’s got the whole “He loved the world THIS much” pose going. ---
**Author:** ![Dietrich\_K](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e68b1a/32.png) [@Dietrich\_K](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dietrich_K)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/105 "2011-05-19T19:56:11Z")
Okay, I’ve got another question. What happens in _Harry Potter_, years five through seven? Obviously, I’ve not read the books, but I’ve seen the first four films (parts 1 & 2 were the textbook definition of “meh”; part 3 was pretty fantastic, I thought; and part 4 returned the proceedings back to Meh-ville, hence my losing any further interest in the series). ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/106 "2011-05-19T20:03:08Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > Ripley mates with the queen, unless that series of shots was just them snuggling. Seriously, they’re holding each other in the dark, and then “babby is formed”. Short of an X rated shot, I think the director implied as much as he dared. Some brave soul that owns it should turn on the commentary. She does not mate with the queen. Even Wiki has the plot synopsis correct. Human Ripley died in the last movie as a baby queen was busting out. Requiring an extreme suspension of disbelief, _Resurrection_ has you believe that if you clone someone from a drop of their blood, you get not only a clone of them, but also a clone of parasite that was within them. Also, the clone will be an adult and have memories of the original dead person. Anyway, the Clone Queen growing inside the Clone Ripley, is surgically removed. Somehow, either due to fiddling in the cloning process or some kind of evolutionary step, the Clone Queen has a womb and gives birth to something like kind of looks like the Michelin Man. It is more like Clone Ripley’s grandkid, if you consider Clone Queen as Ripley’s chest-bursty offspring. Michelin Man has just enough human traits that it looks at its Clone Queen bio-mom and says: “Holy, sh\*t, an alien!” and kills it. Then it decides that Ripley is better mommy material. Ripley talks nice to Michelin Man and tricks it so she can kill it via space vacuum. That might be what you’re remembering. Ripley acts all mommy-like to the Michelin Man, and pets it, makes coo sounds, acts all snuggly, and says “Nice Michelin Man, good Michelin Man. Come give mommy a kiss, my sweet little Michy.” etc. to lure it to a safe spot where she can kill its ass. This is [a pic](http://site.jacobcharlesdietz.com/wp-content/alien-resurection-ripley-baby.jpg) of Clone Ripley acting like she’s being nice to the poor, frightened Michelin Man monster baby. She is _not_ mating with it. She is trying to act like its mommy to lure it to the space ship door. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/107 "2011-05-19T20:03:49Z")
> [@Dietrich\_K](#): > > I’ve got one. Why do all of my friends, coworkers, etc., either chortle ruefully and roll their eyes or perpetrate a classic facepalm whenever I so much as mention **Signs**? I mean, I get it: it’s written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, so it’s obviously going to be a piece of shit, but why, exactly, is this particular movie of his pretty well universally considered to be so bad? (I say “pretty well universally”, as I know exactly one person who not only likes, but LOVES this film, and he’s a conservative Baptist minister. Does that hold any significance?) I love _Signs_, and I’m an atheist. _Signs_ is decried because it was marketed as an alien invasion movie, when in fact it’s about grief, anger, and faith. While many of the plot criticisms are valid, they still don’t bother me because I find the story of the family’s mourning the dead mother/wife/sister so engaging. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/108 "2011-05-19T20:44:34Z")
> [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](#): > > Human Ripley died in the last movie as a baby queen was busting out. Requiring an extreme suspension of disbelief, _Resurrection_ has you believe that if you clone someone from a drop of their blood, you get not only a clone of them, but also a clone of parasite that was within them. Also, the clone will be an adult and have memories of the original dead person. This can be fanwanked to an extent without causing too much soreness. Part of the reason the alien is the “perfect predator” is that it is able to inherit characteristics from it’s host. Think of the alien as having much more DNA than a human, allowing advanced instincts and even some racial memory to be encoded. The Ripley clone isn’t human, she is a human-alien hybrid. She doesn’t have much of the way of specific memories of being Ripley. I am definitely fanwaking here, but I actually find the overdone “acid for blood” and the speed of which the chestburster grows into an adult more damaging to my suspension of disbelief. I’d have enjoyed Alien more if the acid blood just burnt Kane when they tried to remove the facehugger instead of going through the hull, and if the alien was given time to grow. The crew failing to track it down, sealing themselves into hypersleep, and then waking to an emergency would have worked better to me. I didn’t find it jarring the first time I watched it, it’s more dramatic the way the film tells it and helps the flow of the story, but it did lessen my enjoyment when re-watching. Sometimes I wish I didn’t notice things like this, I prefer immersion to sitting there with my critic head screwed on. As an aside, jesus holy h mary christ. When reading up on Alien I came across this picture of [H.R. Giger](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/H._R._Giger.jpg), which is much scarier than the creature itself. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/109 "2011-05-19T21:00:33Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I am definitely fanwaking here, but I actually find the overdone “acid for blood” and the speed of which the chestburster grows into an adult more damaging to my suspension of disbelief. Yeah, you’d probably prefer a “superbase for blood” more, judging from your username. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/110 "2011-05-19T21:10:51Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > This can be fanwanked to an extent without causing too much soreness. Part of the reason the alien is the “perfect predator” is that it is able to inherit characteristics from it’s host. Think of the alien as having much more DNA than a human, allowing advanced instincts and even some racial memory to be encoded. The Ripley clone isn’t human, she is a human-alien hybrid. She doesn’t have much of the way of specific memories of being Ripley. That’s true. I’d forgotten that she has acid blood now and has an unhealthy attraction to that other part of her new-fangled DNA heritage. Still I can see some genetically encoded “memory” type stuff (the way experiments with that chimpanzees in captivity show that they are afraid of snakes even without having been taught to fear snakes my their ape parents), but Ripley’s memories seemed way too vivid/specific to have been recovered from a blood droplet. The rapidly growing aliens have bugged me too. But then I’ also amazed by the size real cows get eating grass. It also occurred to me that Clone Ripley, who enjoys hanging with her DNA-half-siblings (aliens) does spend some time in an alien mosh pit when the baby-thing is born, so I think there is ample opportunity to misremember the footage as human-alien hanky panky. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/111 "2011-05-19T21:15:19Z")
Nope. I’m not talking about mating with the white hybrid, bit with the queen. I’d provide the timestamp if I owned the dvd. There are a number of quick shots of Ripley in an embrace with the queen, and then later the hybrid is born. That queen, prior to mating, was only producing in the classic xenomorph fashion by laying facehugger eggs. Post-coupling she gives live birth to a hybrid. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/112 "2011-05-19T21:28:24Z")
> [@Idle\_Thoughts](#): > > He was until Friday the 13th Part 6. That’s the part he rose from the dead for the first time and officially became a supernatural entity. > He was human in all the movies before that (and just continually surviving all the kill “attempts” at the end of every one). That’s not quite right - the first time he rises from the dead is at the very end of the original movie, when he pops out of the lake to grab the girl who just killed his mom - the original serial killer of the series. Up until number six, it’s arguable that he’s not killed again, although getting that axe through the skull at the end of part 3 looked pretty terminal. When they pull the axe out at the morgue in part 4, he pops right back up - bad Hollywood medicine, or supernatural resurrection? Could go either way. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/113 "2011-05-19T21:32:18Z")
> [@Bakhesh](#): > > To be honest, people slag off Avatar way more than than was justified. The plot was derivative and pedestrian sure, but so are a LOT of action movies. Avatar’s plot is probably about average for films of this type. The visuals easily justified the cost of admission. The level of detail you could see on the Imax was jaw dropping (might look a lot less impressive on DVD). In fairness, a lot of people were praising the film way more than was justified, too. A lot of the over-the-top criticism it received was in reaction to the over-the-top praise people were showering on it. > [@](#): > > Yeah sure, it wasn’t Citizen Kane, but I’ve checked, and Citizen Kane doesn’t have a single combat exoskeleton or six legged horse thing, and that’s supposed to be the best film ever? _Citizen Kane_ does, however, have pterodactyls. (I’m not kidding.) ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/114 "2011-05-19T21:45:24Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > Nope. I’m not talking about mating with the white hybrid, bit with the queen. I’d provide the timestamp if I owned the dvd. There are a number of quick shots of Ripley in an embrace with the queen, and then later the hybrid is born. Just dug out the DVD, I see where you are coming from now, but you have misinterpreted it. Ripley has some sort of empathic link with the aliens. Before falling into the nest, Ripley says “I hear them” and then that the queen is in pain. These are labour pains. Ripley is actually in an embrace with a worker carrying her, not the queen. You can tell because the head is different. The implication is that Ripley is part of the alien family. > [@drastic\_quench](#): > > That queen, prior to mating, was only producing in the classic xenomorph fashion by laying facehugger eggs. Post-coupling she gives live birth to a hybrid. At the start of the birth scene, there is some exposition from a cocooned scientist to explain this. He says that after laying her eggs the queen changed and entered a second cycle. > [@](#): > > This time there is no host. There are no eggs. There is only her womb and the creature inside. That is Ripleys gift to her. A human reproductive system. She is giving birth for you Ripley. And now she is perfect. This isn’t ambiguous, after the alien child kills the queen and goes to Ripley he says: > [@](#): > > Look, he thinks you are it’s mother. **Chronos** , your Sigourney Weaver lesbian fantasy is now safe, and I have done a great service for mankind today. ---
**Author:** ![Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@Swallowed\_My\_Cellphone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Swallowed_My_Cellphone)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/115 "2011-05-19T21:55:44Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > Nope. I’m not talking about mating with the white hybrid, bit with the queen. I’d provide the timestamp if I owned the dvd. There are a number of quick shots of Ripley in an embrace with the queen, and then later the hybrid is born.. She does spend time with other aliens and with the queen ([pic](http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Alien_Resurrection.jpg).) Other message boards indicate that the scene in which an alien carries Ripley to the queen is frequently misread as hot hybrid-alien sex (the lights and background moving behind her show that they are traveling). ETA: Or what **Alka Seltzer** said. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/116 "2011-05-19T22:14:02Z")
> [@Dietrich\_K](#): > > Okay, I’ve got another question. What happens in _Harry Potter_, years five through seven? Obviously, I’ve not read the books, but I’ve seen the first four films (parts 1 & 2 were the textbook definition of “meh”; part 3 was pretty fantastic, I thought; and part 4 returned the proceedings back to Meh-ville, hence my losing any further interest in the series). briefly: 1. Harry discovers that Voldemort has split his soul into seven pieces, and hidden six of them in various artefacts. Voldemort cannot die as long as these objects are intact. Some of them have been destroyed already, the diary in book 2 was one of them. Sirius Black’s brother turned against V and destroyed another, and another was destroyed by Dumbledore. 2. Snape murders Dumbledore. 3. Harry and friends track down and destroy the remaining artefacts. 4. It turns out that Draco Malfoy had been ordered to kill Dumbledore. D was already dying anyway from his contact with the artefact. He instructed Snape to kill him, to save Draco from becoming a murderer. 5. There is a final battle at Hogwarts. V kills Harry, but actually only destroys his scar, which was in fact the last fragment of his soul. Harry comes back to life, and kills V. A few secondary characters are killed, including one of the Weasley twins. The Malfoys switch sides and assist the goodies against V. 6. In an epilogue, years later, Harry & Ginny are married, as are Ron and Hermione. They have children of their own, who are going to Hogwarts. ---
**Author:** ![drastic\_quench](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e36b37/32.png) [@drastic\_quench](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drastic_quench)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/117 "2011-05-19T22:20:39Z")
I can see that as an interpretation, but it sounds a little safe for a Jean-Pierre Jeunet movie. I wonder if he wanted any ambiguity there? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/118 "2011-05-19T22:21:17Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > I love _Signs_, and I’m an atheist. > > _Signs_ is decried because it was marketed as an alien invasion movie, when in fact it’s about grief, anger, and faith. While many of the plot criticisms are valid, they still don’t bother me because I find the story of the family’s mourning the dead mother/wife/sister so engaging. You were captivated by the “atheist mad at God because his wife died” trope? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/119 "2011-05-19T22:29:05Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You were captivated by the “atheist mad at God because his wife died” trope? Gibson’s character was never an atheist, he was a disillusioned theist. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2011, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323/120 "2011-05-19T22:46:12Z")
> [@drastic\_quench](#): > > I can see that as an interpretation, but it sounds a little safe for a Jean-Pierre Jeunet movie. I wonder if he wanted any ambiguity there? There is no ambiguity at all as far as Ripley and the queen goes, it’s really not a matter of interpretation. The scenes that precede it are less clear cut, especially where Ripley submits and falls into the nest. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-about-movies-you-certainly-have-no-intention-of-seeing/582323.md?page=7)