Corrected entry: How it is possible that, despite Loki being on Sakaar for some time, he seems to have no idea that The Hulk is also on the planet? This is given away by his reaction when he sees Hulk in the arena. Loki also has gotten close to The Grandmaster, and there are images of the Hulk carved into the sides of buildings, but he has no clue that The Hulk is the arena champion?
Charles Austin Miller
16th Nov 2017
Thor: Ragnarok (2017)
16th Nov 2015
The Raid: Redemption (2011)
Factual error: Throughout the film's high-energy choreographed fight sequences, Rama is repeatedly struck in the arms, legs and back with machetes. He not only suffers no wounds, but his tactical gear isn't even lacerated.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Depending on what part of town his gear, the angle and strength of the blow, and how sharp the machete is, there may have only been negligible cuts. Apparently loose fitting clothes can sometimes be enough to keep a blade from cutting some of the time.
Rama's gear doesn't show even minimal lacerations or abrasions after multiple attacks.
8th Oct 2018
House on Haunted Hill (1959)
Other mistake: Once Dr. Trent enters the bedroom where Mrs. Loren is lying down "dead", they begin talking. Trent says "At first I couldn't get Nora to protect herself with a gun." There is no scene in the movie where he tries to convince her to use the gun, Lance is responsible for that. (01:02:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: After Annabelle Loren is found hanging under suspicious circumstances, both Lance Schroeder and David Trent advise all the other guests to stay in their rooms with their guns and shoot any intruders.
Just before he leaves for the meeting, Lance tells Nora, "If you have to, you use it." Nora was not at the meeting to hear what was said, so ultimately, it was Lance who got Nora to protect herself with the gun.
There's an important mistake in your version of Dr. Trent's quote. What Trent actually says is, "At first I couldn't get Nora to want to protect herself with a gun." He's not saying that he personally advised her to protect herself; he's saying that he, through his various scary tricks, had failed to scare Nora into arming herself. Trent's immediate next lines are: "But after you appeared at the window, everything began to work just as we planned. You were wonderful, just the touch that finally drove her into complete hysteria." We know that David Trent and Annabelle Loren were behind a number of staged scares (such as the witch in the basement, the attack on Lance, Annabelle's hanging, etc) intended to push Nora toward hysteria, setting her up, of course, to kill Mr. Loren "by accident," thereby committing the perfect crime.
24th Sep 2018
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Corrected entry: When Marty first uses his talkie talkie he is holding it backwards. Microphone slats are at the back not front, and the antenna is on the left not right. In later scenes he is holding it correctly.
Correction: It's a running gag in the BTTF movies that Marty is comically ignorant of operating both past and future technology; he futilely attempts to twist the cap off a pop bottle in 1955, for one example, and he has no idea how "one size fits all" clothing works in 2015. His mishandling of the walkie-talkie may also be attributed to this ignorance; however, his walkie-talkie should function properly no matter how he holds it, as long as he pushes the transmit button with the microphone a few inches from his mouth.
20th Mar 2018
Justice League (2017)
Continuity mistake: When Superman is explosively resurrected by the MotherBox, it disintegrates the clothes and shoes in which he was buried, but he's still wearing pants immediately afterwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It disintegrates most of his clothes. What he's left with are the pants he was buried in.
So, the gigantic blast vaporized his shirt, tie, jacket, shoes and even socks, but didn't affect his pants at all? Seems unlikely.
Well although I agree you gotta know that the obvious reason for this is that they didn't want them fighting a naked Superman. He is still wearing the same pants as he was buried in though, not suddenly wearing different pants. On the other hand it would have been more logical for Superman to be naked for a second or so, then in the next scene wearing something which he got from anywhere in the city in a split second. Unfortunately for the movie makers they show him wearing them as he shoots up from the building, and it's the same pants so the plausibility gets quite lost. It's not a continuity mistake though.
Whether it's plausible or not is debatable, but the original mistake claimed his pants changed. The correction is that they're the same pants he was buried in.
Suggested correction: It's never verified that his clothes and shoes were "disintegrated." He could have removed them because they were likely tattered from blasting through the roof.
True, but it's semantics? Vaporized, tattered, sliced into cubes or deep fried, the crux is still that his magic pants are intact and the rest isn't. I mean, it's pretty obvious like lionhead said in his comment, why it happened; modesty reasons. Some (not me!) might consider pedantic or too obvious to point out such an event that falls generally under the suspension of disbelief category, however it's a fact.
29th Aug 2018
Robocop 2 (1990)
Corrected entry: RoboCop is programmed with prime directives which he must follow. One of the rules, the third one, states that he must uphold the law and yet he crosses a double yellow while driving. The turn signal is not being used either.
Correction: Police are traditionally exempt from conventional traffic laws, and particularly in emergency and pursuit situations. Among many other things, police are allowed to exceed speed limits, drive against one-way traffic, pass in no-pass zones, and even force other vehicles off the road when the situation calls for it (these would be considered violations or even serious crimes if committed by civilians). All of these exemptions and more would certainly be written into Robocop's programming.
27th Aug 2001
Back to the Future Part II (1989)
Plot hole: If Old Biff changed his past and went back to 2015, he goes back to HIS future, not the bad future, but Doc later tells Marty that if he were to go to the future to stop Biff from taking the almanac, he'd go to the bad future, so Old Biff technically shouldn't have been able to return to "his" future at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The effects of the past being altered may not have happened immediately. It is possible that it took time for the timelines to adjust to the changes of events, meaning enough time would have passed to change 1985 when they return, but not enough time could have passed to change 2015. By the time Doc says if they went back to 2015 they would be going to an alternate future, some time has passed, so the effects of the past being altered and taking ahold in 2015 and altering it are more likely to have occurred by then.
Here is what you say: "perhaps it took time for the time lines to adjust." What kind of time would timelines take? Time is time, it doesn't take time to change the timeline. That doesn't make any sense. Some people claim it was the DeLorean itself that came back to its own original timeline and only then reset itself in the new one, but then the new timelines being erased later on wouldn't have happened either. So its a genuine plot hole.
It's established in the first film that it takes time for the changes to take effect. Marty and his siblings slowly disappear from the photo, rather than instantly. Although the scene in BTTF2 was deleted, it was filmed showing Biff dying and slowly fading away after his return to his present.
Yet they were restored instantly without any outside influence at the end of the movie. There are a lot of things wrong with this movie and the first one. Old Biff disappearing should mean that Marty and Doc should slowely disappear as well, even the DeLorean. But they didn't, that doesn't make any sense. The point is there is a plot hole, somewhere. To know where all you can do is look at it logically and then you automatically come up with Old Biff going back to the future but not the alternate future. If he did there wouldn't have been a movie, but that's the plot hole.
The timeline didn't change until he made his first bet which was some years I think after receiving it. He immediately travelled forward after giving the act, meaning he will still jump forward to the original future.
The timelines would instantly change, and Old Biff couldn't possibly have returned to "normal" 2015. It's just a poorly-thought-out time travel plot hole (or a deliberate error to expedite the storyline).
Suggested correction: In context, Doc was saying that they couldn't return to 2015 to stop Biff from stealing the time machine, because Biff didn't steal the time machine in the alternate 2015, he only stole it in the original 2015. Marty and Doc didn't stay long enough in 2015 after Biff returned, and that's why they didn't see any differences. Also, though they were unaware of it, Biff was dead in the alternate 2015, so the disasters he caused might have reverted back after his death.
20th Aug 2018
Ghost (1990)
Other mistake: At the time Sam is shot his soul separates from his body, indicating that he dies, but in the next shot the ambulance is carrying him to the hospital in order to help him.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: If paramedics think there might be a chance to save someone they will continue treatment until a doctor has made the call to stop. Just because the paramedics continued to try to save him doesn't mean he hadn't already died, just that they were not yet willing to give up.
I've seen Emergency Medical Technicians and County Coroners call "dead at the scene" many times, without any attempt to resuscitate. In Sam's case, in this movie, he certainly seems to be dead, just a moment after the gun discharges.
18th Aug 2018
The Shape of Water (2017)
Corrected entry: In the film it is advised that the creature be maintained at 5 - 8% salinity. The sea is only around 3.5%. It seems odd that he should need so much salt.
Correction: The film states he's not from the ocean. He's from a specific, presumably fictional, area of the Amazon where he was worshiped as a god. We can simply assume the area has water with a higher salinity level than ocean water. (As there are places around the world that have water with significantly higher salinity levels than ocean water).
Those bodies of water on the earth's surface with much higher salt content are invariably isolated lakes and inland seas that were formerly connected to the oceans in the distant past. Such high-salt lakes are the result of many millennia (even millions of years) of evaporation and reduction, which results in the nearby terrain becoming almost devoid of vegetation (due to the increasingly high alkalinity of the surrounding water table). So, you would expect to see near-desert-like conditions in the vicinity of isolated salt lakes and inland seas and virtually no large wildlife (except maybe migrating flamingos at certain times of the year). Point is, while there is evidence of "marine incursion" across the northern half of South America as far back as 14 million years ago (which did, in fact, produce the largest salt flats in the world at Uyuni, Bolivia), these salt lakes are very hostile and even toxic to complex life. Large animals, such as gill-people, simply couldn't have evolved there, with a saline content more than twice that of the ocean and virtually no food chain.
He's meant to be a river god, as confirmed by the director, who wrote: "It is a river God. It's not an animal. It's a river God in the Amazon. There was never another one." Therefore, it's entirely possible he survived in such a harsh environment and thrived.
12th Aug 2018
The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988)
Deliberate mistake: Baron Munchausen sends his courier, Berthold, on a one-hour errand to procure a bottle of the finest Tokay from the imperial wine cellars in Vienna. Berthold returns with the bottle within the hour and (in one continuous wide shot) hands the bottle to Baron Munchausen, who then hands it to the Sultan, who effortlessly plucks the cork from the bottle with his fingertips and pours a glass for himself. But there is no way the Sultan could simply pluck out the cork with his fingertips in one move; this extremely valuable bottle of wine is visibly sealed (in every shot) with a thick, air-tight red wax. This wax must first be cut and peeled away to access the deeply-embedded cork, and the cork must then be removed with a wine key (corkscrew). The action of properly opening the bottle would have required more time than the entire scene itself; so, to expedite the flow of the shot, director Terry Gilliam deliberately chose to forego a proper uncorking.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You're ignoring the fact that the entire scene is a story the real Munchausen is telling from memory. There are many fantastic elements that do not hold with reality, like him riding his horse out of the window, falling several stories, and landing safety, or Adolphus being able to see and shoot to the other side of the world. The bottle is simply an example of Munchausen not adhering to reality.
In any event, the Sultan's effortless uncorking of the bottle was a deliberate mistake intended to allow a whole series of actions to occur sequentially in the single wide shot in less than 5 seconds.
Yet, at the end, Sally addresses Baron Munchausen directly and asks him the question that the audience has been wondering throughout the whole movie: "It wasn't just a story, was it?" The Baron solemnly shakes his head, affirming that he was telling the truth all along, regardless of how fantastic it sounded. This point is often missed by the movie's critics.
The point I raised wasn't that the Baron's story wasn't true, but rather that he embellished it.
30th Jul 2018
Men in Black (1997)
Corrected entry: The Arquillians threaten to destroy the Earth if they cannot retrieve the Galaxy. But where is Griffin's Arc Net Shield (MIB 3) which protects earth from alien invasions?
Correction: That arc shield was meant specifically for the Boglodites, not all alien species. Besides, the Arquillians aren't invading Earth, they just blow it up from orbit.
Correction: Griffin's Arc Net Shield did not exist in the first movie, nor in the second, because the Arc Net Shield was a plot device of the third movie only. There is little background continuity between the three films, so we cannot assume they share the same plot devices, especially in retrospect. One constant, however, was mentioned by Agent K in the first film: "There's always an alien battle cruiser, or a Corellian death ray, or an intergalactic plague intended to wipe out life on this miserable little planet. The only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they do not know about it!" In this way, director Barry Sonnenfeld set up a sequel universe in which there could be any number of independent threats against the Earth that the MIB simply addressed one at a time without overlapping plots. Multiple threats and appropriate defenses were seldom discussed but were just routine for the MIB.
There is continuity between the 3 films. Frank the Pug as a picture on J's wall. J complaining about false promises K made when he recruited him. The alien battle cruiser you mentioned. Why shouldn't there be no continuity? Who said MiB movies are standalone episodes?
I agree there is continuity. The supposed constant helps keep things small and reset them almost completely (same goes for the neuralizer), but that doesn't mean there is no continuity. Its also a fact J doesn't know a tenth of what K knows, including the existence of the arc shield.
My comment was "little or no background continuity," such that there are sequential references to Frank the Pug, et cetera. But MIB3 is its own story, and the first two films didn't anticipate or acknowledge the Arc Net Shield. That was purely an MIB3 plot device.
But it fits in the first 2 MIB movies just fine, so its irrelevant.
Well, by that reasoning, you could just as easily say that the first MIB film and MIB2 ceased to exist throughout most of the third film. Early in MIB3, Agent K was killed in Florida in 1969, he never launched the Arc Net Shield (so why didn't the Boglodites invade the Earth), Agent K never met J again in New York City years later, J never became an MIB Agent, et cetera, et cetera. Yet the present hardly changes at all after Agent K is killed in 1969. As long as we're "fitting" things together in retrospect, there are a LOT contradictions and continuity problems with the whole trilogy. Which is why I still think the trilogy is supposed to be a series of stand-alone films with no over-arcing continuity.
Nothing wrong with the timeline in that aspect. The Boglodites didn't invade earth until the present day, just hours after Boris escaped and killed K, that was the scheduled invasion, which would have failed had the shield been there (and killed off the boglodites). Without K someone else obviously recruited J, seeing his potential just as K did, as you might recall J was just an agent in the alternate present day and not seen as a stranger. Any other things that might have gone different we simply don't see in the little time we spend in the altered present day (before J goes back).
But Agent K did not just pick J "for his potential; according to MIB3, Agent K took the very young J under his wing, giving him a specific direction in life (probably spying on J regularly as he grew up, and intending to recruit J to the Men in Black. Assuming that J was always going to be an MIB agent (without K's intervention) is a pretty huge assumption. And then, of course, there's the matter of J being the only one who remembered K in the present. How did that work?
Again, even though K wasn't there to take J under his wing some other agent could have picked up on J's capabilities, its not that huge an assumption. J remembers K in the present because, according to Jeffrey, he was there, in the past his young self was present when the time change occurred and therefor he retains his original self (which is just a plot contrivance, but whatever, its a time travel movie).
29th Jul 2018
Lucy (2014)
Corrected entry: When Lucy begins to travel through space and time during the climax, she's physically appearing in the difference places - both the native Americans and "Lucy" the ape react to her appropriately with shock. but when she appears in Paris, New York, etc. in crowded areas, nobody reacts to her at all, runs into her, etc. even though she's simply and seemingly magically appeared in the middle of bustling streets around dozens and dozens of people. (Especially strange in New York, when she's in the middle of a massive crowd.) Obviously done on purpose to make the scenes flow quicker, but an oddity nonetheless.
Correction: C'mon. Stranger things happen in New York and Paris all the time. In this day and age, people costumed as Spiderman and Batman could be mugging each other in an intersection, and the passersby wouldn't even give it a second glance. A woman sitting quietly in a chair on a city street wouldn't even raise an eyebrow.
11th Feb 2008
Mary Poppins (1964)
Corrected entry: When the cook attacks the chimney sweeps, she uses a non-stick frying pan. Non-stick frying pans weren't invented until the 1950s, and the movie takes place in the 1910s.
Correction: Upon closer inspection, the pan is in fact not non-stick. But instead carbon steel, which would be appropriate for the time period.
Cast-iron would be most appropriate for 1910. Carbon steel certainly existed at the time and was used in the manufacture of high-end swords, sawmill blades, cutlery, razors and the like, but would be prohibitively expensive for the manufacture of frying pans for the general consumer.
13th Jul 2017
Alien: Covenant (2017)
Corrected entry: The computer on board the ship mistakes David for Walter. This makes no sense as while a human being could be fooled by his appearance or his voice, a computer with detailed sensors and possessing the exact details of David's composition would not be fooled simply because the two "look" and "sound" alike. In fact, Walter, being a newer and more advanced model, should be composed of different chemicals and materials than the earlier manufactured David making it even less likely that the ship's computer would have mistaken the two.
Correction: Makes way too many assumptions about the manufacturing of either one.
Furthermore, we do not know exactly how the ship is supposed to be identifying the androids in the first place.
I feel like I already corrected a similar mistake. David is less advanced, but cleverer than Walter. The correction is right in saying there are too many assumption being made. Who knows what David did to be more like Walter, that might even be easy for a highly advanced android. Who knows how advanced and sophisticated the computer sensors are to detect an imposter android. I didn't think the computer or anything much is made with many defenses against sabotage. Its a peaceful universe. Also don't really remember but the first time David enters the ship couldn't he already have modified the computer? Hacked it?
Well, we do know that Walter is constructed much differently that David. David uses what he thinks is an android-lethal move on Walter, and David thinks he has killed Walter. Moments later, David is astonished to see Walter not only alive but ready to do battle again. At this point, Walter even says, "There have been a few upgrades since your day." Which means that Walter is different in ways that even David didn't imagine. So, the original post is correct: Even a cursory security scan of David would have instantly revealed that he wasn't Walter.
25th Jul 2018
Back to the Future Part III (1990)
Corrected entry: Doc could not have the copy of the pic of him and Marty at the clock of the tower, because Marty has it in the DeLorean when he comes back to 1985.
Correction: The technology existed in 1885 to produce duplicate copies of the same photograph. The photographer who took it would certainly be able to do so there and then. Even if that wasn't the case it's not a stretch that someone of Doc's abilities could manage it so that he and Marty could each have their own copy.
Correction: It's certainly possible that they got more than one photograph taken.
Correction: There are several instances of duplicate (doppelganger) items and characters in the same timeline throughout the BTTF trilogy. For example, the DeLorean itself exists two and even three times within the same timeline. Doc and Marty and Jennifer and Biff all exist as doppelgangers within the same timeline. So, a duplicate photograph should be no problem in a storyline riddled with such inconsistencies.
This is incorrect... there is only 1 Marty, 1 Biff, 1 Doc, 1 Jennifer and 1 DeLorean. Yes, multiple versions may exist at the same time but in no instance is there a copy of the original person or car. For example, in BTTF II in 1955 there are 2 Marty's at the dance at the same time but the 2nd newer Marty is the same Marty from BTTF I. There should only be 1 copy of the picture, on the other hand, because it has not (to the best of our knowledge) been time traveling. The only explanations (for it to not be a mistake and these are still guesses) could be that they had a second picture taken even though it might be an expensive and time consuming process or Doc Brown could have gone into the future and taken it from Marty and, therefore, the picture could exist twice in 1 time period.
The photo time-travels at least twice in BTTF3: Once with Marty in the DeLorean on the explosive return trip, and again a few moments later when Doc arrives in the steam-powered locomotive time machine. We can reasonably assume that there was another, time-erased meeting between Marty and Doc (possibly in the future) wherein Marty explained how the photo was destroyed, prompting Doc to go back to the Old West and procure the photo again. Same exact photo X2, same scene, just as there were multiple characters and vehicles in the same timelines.
23rd Jul 2018
Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)
Corrected entry: When Diana opens the email sent by Bruce, the attachment containing the LexCorp Meta Human Research videos lists the file size of the entire attachment as 24MB. However, the file sizes for the four video files inside the attachment are listed as 12MB, 503MB, 32MB and 214MB. This equals to a minimum file size of 761MB, greatly exceeding the 24MB listed as the attachment file size.
Correction: The email attachment contained metadata to reach the files, not the video files themselves. You can see on later screens the videos have addresses like smb://170.161.20.51/... indicating a network address. (For the curious, 170.161.20.51 in real life belongs to a New York Long Island school district).
An email containing nothing but a few hyperlinks wouldn't be 24mb. More like 400k.
The email contained a digital copy of Diana's photograph. When Bruce was looking through the data he stole from Lex (after making the spear head) and came across the image, the indexed file size was 31.8mb. If you account for a bit of compression or resizing to send it through email - there's your 24mb.
It could contain icons or thumbnails, or embedded decryption keys, or description text blocks, or many other things that could add up to 24MB.
27th Aug 2001
The Terminator (1984)
Corrected entry: After the car chase in which Kyle and Sarah are being chased by Arnold, Arnold's stolen cop car crashes into the parking lot wall. When the trailing police haul Sarah and Kyle away, Arnold is missing from the car he's just crashed. Kyle has clearly stated that the Terminator will absolutely not stop until Sarah is dead. Why would he flee the scene from a few cops - given his resilience - when he could have kept after Sarah and killed her right there? Was he "afraid" of doing it in front of the police? Was he concerned about getting away?
Correction: The terminator was injured in the crash as we see later when he repairs his arm and eye. He also has no way of knowing that the police don't have weapons that could damage him (he asks for a plasma rifle at the gun shop, implying he knows little of 1980s weapons).
Yet the Terminator apparently does possess a 1980s database, allowing him to instantly operate a variety of 1980s automobiles (including tractor-trailers), use telephone directories and telephones, and even select appropriate curse words of the day. He also, obviously, possesses a database of current 1980s road atlases (allowing him to track Sarah and Kyle by physical address). It would be inconceivable to equip the Terminator with all of this 1980s data and yet not equip him with full knowledge of available 1980s weaponry, given the purpose of his mission. Thus, the "plasma rifle" request at the gun shop was either a glitch in his programming or it was a plot-hole in the movie. Just as his fleeing the scene of the car wreck was a plot-hole. The Terminator had absolutely no fear of 1980s law enforcement, as is made apparent when he destroys police headquarters single-handedly.
Correction: I disagree with why this is in the corrections as this assessment as earlier in the film, Sarah asks Kyle "Can you stop him?" And Reese replies "with these weapons, I'm not sure." So, obviously, the weapons that are carried around couldn't have stopped the terminator. Plus the terminator wasn't worried about the weapons being used as we see later on it goes into the police station to kill Sarah Connor, so this proves it wouldn't have been worried about the weapons being used. Also, Kyle has said to Sarah, the terminator will stop at nothing to kill her, so why stop here?
I think the weaponry concern was less of an issue than him being injured. With a damaged arm and eye and facing reinforcements he opted to withdraw and repair himself before trying again. Not to mention that Reese doesn't say: "With these weapons, I'm not sure." He specifically says, with a doubtful tone of voice: "With these weapons, I don't know."
Exactly. Not stopping for anything doesn't mean he isn't tactical.
17th Sep 2005
Never Say Never Again (1983)
Audio problem: When Bond shoots Fatima with the pen, first the is a small puff-sound, and then a larger boom-sound after the projectile hits her, but before it explodes. What makes the second sound? (01:28:35)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The pen rocket didn't use an impact detonator, so the miniature rocket had to expend all its fuel before its explosive payload detonated. That was the weapon's malfunction when Bond tried to use it on Fatima Blush: the rocket did not expend all its fuel and simply lodged in her clothing. Then the rocket fuel reignited, producing a sputtering hiss for a moment before the powerful explosives actually detonated, blasting Fatima into confetti.
It's also a three-stage blast. The first bang is Fatima's torso detonating (which is actually not that large an explosion), followed by another blast that disperses fuel for the third blast, which was pretty powerful for an indoor explosion.
6th Jul 2018
Jurassic Park (1993)
Corrected entry: When Tim is holding onto the fence, when the power came on, it would cause his hand muscles to clench the cable.
Correction: You haven't been electrocuted before. Otherwise, you would know that a powerful electric shock will knock you backwards by several feet.
Depends on whether it's Alternating Current, which would do as the original mistake says, or Direct Current, which would do the second option, like the correction. Insufficient information is given to say solidly which the fence uses.
We can reasonably assume that Jurassic Park was using Direct Current, wisely intended to repel the dinosaurs away from the fence line. If it was Alternating Current, then the multi-billion-dollar menagerie of ultra-rare specimens would be fried to a crisp (or at least seriously injured) on a daily basis, as they would be unable to release the charged fences. Therefore, Direct Current is the only fiscally-logical choice (and it explains Tim being repelled from the fence).
19th Sep 2002
Signs (2002)
Corrected entry: The aliens are obviously very intelligent creatures - after all, they mastered space travel, and presumably travel at or near light speed, in order to get to Earth. Considering that exposure to water is deadly, why would such intelligent creatures choose a planet which is three-quarters covered by water?
Correction: The aliens have arrived to harvest humans, rather than take over the planet. We don't know why they want them and they probably do not plan to stay. Humans routinely travel into places hazardous to themselves to gather valuable resources (space, oceans, poisonous mines).
Correction: We are talking about a species that is not an inhabitant of Earth. The aliens are from a completely different world, in which its atmosphere and resources are likely going to be vastly different from that of Earth. The reason as to why they came to a planet that is 70% deadly to them is simple - the aliens are unaware of what water is or the dangers it can bring to them. The aliens' planet is never seen, so it is not too far of a stretch to assume that water is not a substance belonging to their planet, nor is it a substance that is in their knowledge.
The only thing we humans really know about Life (aside from how to kill it) is that Life is dependent on water. We can't even imagine a form of Life that is not water-based. Water is an abundant compound in this universe, both a fuel and a vehicle for Life.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: Loki has only been on Sakaar for a week. We do not know how often the Contest of Champions is held with its champion (Hulk), we also don't know how often Loki left the Grandmaster's home. Also we see that the building with Hulk's head is under construction, so Loki may not have seen it when it was closer to completion.
Also, Loki specifically says he's never seen the champion. He may simply have had no interest in watching the gladiator battles until he had an opportunity to watch Thor fight.
Loki does not have the best relationship with the Hulk and may be in denial of Hulk's fame on Sakaar. Loki may even be paranoid or phobic about the Hulk's presence on Sakaar. Being a consummate deceiver, first and foremost, Loki is probably lying, just to avoid the subject of the Hulk.
Charles Austin Miller