14th Jan 2021
Chapter 10: The Passenger - S2-E2
Corrected entry: Mando's passenger is a frog woman who has not been established as being in any way dangerous or wanted or have any reason to hide (and her cargo is her offspring, which is again nothing illegal), but Mando acts sneakily to hide her presence.
14th Jan 2021
Chapter 15: The Believer - S2-E7
Plot hole: The Imperial terminals have facial scan recognition...or just facial scan, really, since ANYONE regardless of being part of the army or not can just access any information of any level, as long as they have ANY face that the app can scan and identify as not being a known criminal.
Suggested correction: The facial scan prevents droids from stealing data from terminals.
And also criminals from doing that. It runs a check, as I said in the entry. Against "Any New Republic registry", even, which should disqualify also Mayfeld being a convicted felon, but that's another issue. Who designs a security system that does complex checks about who is a wanted criminal or part of 'the other side' but does not check if you are part of their side? Also, any low level trooper (or nobody, even the janitor) can just access any information of any level, including the location of their special forces cruiser.
Maybe it just checks if you're human. You never see non-humans as part of the empire. A lot of non-humans are as "subspecies" by the empire.
14th Jan 2021
Plot hole: Mando's ship was completely wrecked, but two mechanics fixed it to top performance level and aesthetic pleasantness in a time shorter than it took for the Child to eat a small packet of macaroons.
Suggested correction: His ship was badly damaged, but mostly repaired by the Mon Calamari. The remaining repair work was less complex, but still took place over the course of several days. A space-faring civilisation being able to repair a damaged ship is not a plot hole.
His ship is literally falling apart (we see pieces falling off as it moves), the engines are barely functioning and looks like hell. It's not at all a mistake that a "space-faring civilization" is "able to repair a damaged ship", it is when the editing of an episode makes it look like two dudes fixed to pristine condition a wreckage in the same time it takes for a kid to munch his cookies.
13th Jan 2021
Chapter 14: The Tragedy - S2-E6
Stupidity: Boba Fett sees an imperial cruiser and says "The Empire...they're back", and Fennec does not believe him. That's after they spent the previous half of the episode killing a few dozens of Stormtroopers in pristine gear and full military asset.
Suggested correction: They've encountered a lot of Imperial Remnant troopers before. That is very different from a fully operational Assault Cruiser.
Two dropships with dozens of stormtroopers in military asset, with mortars and cannons, who have a drop on their position and destroy a ship from orbit. You are saying it is implied (or canonical) that they had any kind of encounter like that before? Fennec's reply that it's impossible since "the Outer Rim is under the jurisdiction of the New Republic" is quite weird coming from someone who just sustained a prolonged fight with imperial forces with support from a powerful starship.
13th Jan 2021
Stupidity: There is no possible reason why Moff Gideon gives any time to Mando and the others, till nightfall even, since he knows they do not have the baby. They have nothing to offer him.
Suggested correction: He didn't know that the Child wasn't in there. The Scout Troopers hadn't radioed anyone about it at that point (if they had, they wouldn't be told to wait at the perimeter of the town in the final episode) and The Client had specifically told Moff Gideon that the Child was in fact in there.
And Gideon knows it's not true, since he specifically replied "You may wanna check again" and mows him down with his guns (and then threatens to use the even bigger gun, who would lay enough devastation to kill everyone including the Child). They are told to wait at the perimeter because the Empire is bureaucratic to the point of silliness (and so Taika Waititi can put his trademark humorous scene in it).
11th Jan 2021
Stupidity: Max is shown fulfilling the various wishes that people express to him, and never turn down any; it would not fit what he became anyway, which is a wishing stone. If people touch him, he has to comply. The wishes he can grant have seemingly no limit, and yet, in this predicament it takes a humongous level of suspension of disbelief to assume that in a climate of global war and chaos, NOBODY wishes for things to go better in any way and the nuclear war to be stopped. There are even in some street scenes "Ban nukes" signs; surely some of those guys must have wished for the madness to stop.
Suggested correction: The Dreamstone was also created by the Duke of Deception to bring chaos into the world. It brought out people's selfish desires. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he was able to continue to manipulate people in wishing what they truly desired, wishing for more than than had. In the comics, Max Lord had the ability to telepathically alter people's minds after he became a metahuman, so it seems the film incorporated this power as well. It/He made people wish for selfish things. That was the purpose of Wonder Woman's monologue, to tell the people to become less selfish, so give up their wants, to be the hero to save the world by giving up their wish (and wish for a better world would have cost too much, so that wouldn't be an option).
"Cost too much" is not a rule established in the movie, since desires like the deportation of the Irish, "Wish I never met you" "want all the money in the world" someone says in background have astonishingly powerful ramifications. LIkewise why would it be an implication that he is the one who makes them wish only selfish things? The movie wants to say that there are no 'good' wishes when you take shortcuts to make them happen (or at least it tries to referencing the Monkey paw) but to do so shows only wishes that are rotten to begin with.
Suggested correction: With so many people wishing at the same time, it's logical a lot of people are wishing for the opposite. I'm sure the stone's power has some way of dealing with conflicting wishes. For example, someone could wish for the world to blow up or burn, whilst others wish that everybody will be happy and healthy. So, nothing much happens that threatens human existence (the stone would be worthless if all humans are dead) as those wishes cancel eachother out. But the nuclear war happened before Max started talking to everybody, so that is happily continuing.
Most people would have wished the nukes to disappear pretty instantly especially with the world falling into chaos and everyone panicking about it.
And others would have wished for them to hit and kill the "heathens" or "hateful." Cancellation.
11th Jan 2021
Character mistake: When Barbara gives the hilarious back story of the wishing stone, she mentions that "Romulus, the last emperor of Rome, he had it on him when he was assassinated in 476." That's an amazing historical find in itself, because Romulus Augustulus (just "Romulus" is not really correct) was never assassinated; he had to abdicate the title in that year, but then lived the rest of his life in exile. It's worth noting that the novelization of the movie talks about Romulus, Rome's FIRST ruler, and his 'mysterious disappearance'. (01:27:45)
Suggested correction: Not a mistake in the movie for Barbara to give inaccurate information on history, since she is rushing through all of it without fact checking everything. He focus is the stone, not what happened to Romulus.
I don't see what's wrong with saying it's a character mistake, really. By that logic, any bit of historical context provided in a movie could be incorrectly stated as long as it comes from someone who is in a rush. I find more interesting to report when something said in a movie for a serious purpose is wrong and not challenged.
She's not an educated historian, OK for her to be mistaken. If she however says wrongful things about something she is supposed to be an expert in, that's a character mistake.
It's not OK for her to be mistaken because when you specifically research for something (she has super-fast reading powers now and her task was to do some complex history research, it was not a random mistake playing Trivial Pursuit) there's no way to get that piece of information wrong; she is tracing the path the stone took, the fate of its last known owner is important. That being said, I don't particularly care about her status as expert (which she is, having done a specific research as said); dramatically speaking it's the bit of historical context the movie provides, it should not have mistakes in it when they do not have a payoff.
11th Jan 2021
Factual error: Diana conjures a shield of invisibility for the jet, but must have also summoned a sound-dampening spell, since the two are comfortably chatting without a helmet and / or usage of the intercom. (01:08:20)
Suggested correction: You correct your own mistake. Not only is the plane invisible, but also silent as is heard when the plane lifts up and disappears.
I was being facetious. The lack of noise happens way before she starts doing the magic hand thing. If anything, it happens in a ton of movies (prolly there's already an entry in the Common mistakes section somewhere) for people to communicate inside aircrafts or other exceptionally noisy vehicles without the aid of intercoms.
Before she does the invisibility trick Steve hasn't put on the full throttle yet.
11th Jan 2021
Character mistake: Barbara mentions that Kush went extinct in 4 AD. Maybe the fourth century? In 4 AD the civilization was still alive and well, and the collapse happened around the 4th century. (01:27:45)
Suggested correction: Barbara didn't say it went extinct in 4 AD. She says the stone appeared in Kush in 4 AD.
11th Jan 2021
Factual error: Diana tells Steve to sum up Barbara's report that the stone appeared in places that all have something in common; "Their civilization collapsed catastrophically, without a trace as to why." That's just ridiculous; one could even argue it could apply to the Maya, who did suffer a sharp decline historians have not reached consensus on, or the Kingdom of Kush's, due to not a great abundance of historical sources, but Carthage? And the Roman Empire had been in a crisis for centuries and it is far from being some mystical overnight disappearance. (01:27:50)
Suggested correction: She never says this sentence. She just said the stone was there, not that it caused unexplained collapses of civilizations.
Never? "The stone has traveled the world to seemingly random and different places, but they all have something in common; their civilization collapsed catastrophically, without a trace as to why." She says that sentence as I quoted it. If that's not a clear implication (together with what happens in this movie when in less than a week the whole world is on the brink of destruction) that it is the stone that caused it, I don't know what it is.
She doesn't say it in the version of the movie I have. Not at that timestamp anyway.
She says it to Steve when she hangs up, my timestamp is about half a minute off since I pointed the beginning of the conversation about civilizations collapsing, I apologize if it caused an inconvenience.
Oh wait, now I know what you mean. She is just jumping to conclusions there. She means that the real reason was the stone, not what history tells them.
11th Jan 2021
Plot hole: The plot specifies that the only way to defeat the evil god is destroying the stone or for everyone to renounce to their gifts. That second option is an impossibility, if you consider that people wished things like "a cup of coffee" that they can't take back in any fathomable way or didn't even realise it was a wish, and it's of course statistically impossible that everyone on the face of Earth was convinced by Wonder Woman's pep talk, or was reached by her message, that spreads through the TV.
Suggested correction: Not everyone had to renounce their wish. The point was that as Wonder Woman was convincing people to be better and rescind their selfish wishes, Max Lord began to lose power and regain his humanity enough to be convinced to rescind his wish. Once he did so, all wishes he granted were not only rescinded, but what he took from everyone was given back. And in a fantasy film, you can certainly "give back" the coffee you wished for. It simply becomes as if you never drank it and the coffee goes back into the pot it came from.
Max ultimately does rescind his wish, but the idea as Steve said was for "everyone to renounce their wish", which would have been impossible to begin with, and the movie shows only, constantly, people wishing for bad things, some of which were inherently transient and can't be reversed (such as the person who wished Max to have an audience with the President.: that can't be taken back). The supposed alternative method was impossible to fulfill. However I agree that that the impossible idea suggested was not what ultimately happened, which matters more.;-).
11th Jan 2021
Plot hole: The established rule of the wishing stone says that you get one wish, to the point that Max couldn't grant a second wish to the guy who wished a Porsche even if Max was really eager to get his help, and warned his son against wasting his, screaming disappointed when he did waste it. But all of a sudden, he can grant Cheetah a second wish because he's "feeling generous". Without rules, he'd be some omnipotent being who can do anything. The fun part is that there was no need at all for this mess, since Barbara's second wish by its nature (and even the way she formulates it) supersedes the first...but Max couldn't know that. (02:01:10)
Suggested correction: Max is taking from whoever wishes, he choses what. What he takes, he gives to Barbara and himself. He takes the health, she gets the fury. That way he grants her wish without her actually wishing. Same with himself, taking what he wants. And yes, what she wishes does supersede her first wish, but e still holds those powers as well.
That's just changing the established rule out of the blue and just for one person. Why would she get more than one wish when everyone else can't and earlier he was shown to have that limit and be frustrated by it?
It can also be pointed out that the original stone gave Barbara her wish. When Max Lord became the Dreamstone, he became something else. She never got a wish from him. When he says he was feeling generous, he wasn't saying he'll grant her a 2nd wish, he's saying he won't take anything from her.
Then he did not get what he wished for, since his wish was literally "I wish to be you, the Dreamstone itself." And him not taking anything from her is again a change of the rule.
And since he didn't turn into a crystal, he became something else. He had the power. And there was no "rule" something had to be taken, Max was taking something out of greed. The stone did have a natural consequence, which Barbara experienced by losing her humanity in order to become Cheetah. But that's noting to do with Max taking anything or the rules changing.
The conversation is shifting away from the original point; she gets 2 wishes and nobody else does, not even people he wants them to. It cannot be because they are considered separate entities, because then the previous stone is not considered in existence anymore and then Barbara and Diana's desires should have been nullified.
Technically you can't call this a mistake. The stone being absorbed by Max doesn't destroy the power the stone held, nor is there a president for this. So there is no telling what would change from the original powers and or ruleset of the stone. Max never granted a 2nd wish and stating he was feeling generous was just a means to get the wish spoken out. Max also offered Diana a wish even though she already had a wish happen by the original stone. The question is, did the stone restore?
It's all the same thing. The problem with a lot of these mistake entries is making false assumptions about what should or shouldn't happen and not understanding who the characters are and what's going on. Yes, the film has flaws, but this isn't a forum to express your personal thoughts about what you think is wrong with the film (some don't even sound like original ideas since they're word exactly like what you can find online everywhere).
Since it's not a forum, I shouldn't reply to something not pertaining to the entry itself, but thanks for saying that you can read this 'everywhere', means I am not the only one thinking this way and perhaps you should wonder why? But that aside he can't grant wishes to someone who already expressed them not take nothing away, until he just does. My original entry says who when why based on the movie itself. The movie being flawed or not is not really my point, I hope it's clear that whenever something about a movie is posted, it does not mean to just 'riff' on the movie or 'bash' it or anything per se. Enjoying a movie and its plot with its simplifications and sometimes metaphorical licenses has nothing to do with examining a plot point and read through the fine print.
Maybe instead of endless comments one should just wait with commenting until the suggested entry is actually liked enough and corrects your mistake. If people don't agree with the suggested correction, no need to discuss it.
9th Sep 2020
Plot hole: There is no reason at all why, being targeted by a few arrows by unseen enemies - a fire suppressed already by the salvo of their own archers - the Rourans would turn around their heavy siege equipment, away from the bulk of the enemy forces, and fire it, hurling a single heavy stone to the middle of nowhere when they have the whole rest of the army who could storm the rock the supposed enemy commandos hide behind, or the archers who could keep shooting - again, they proved to be completely successful. It also makes no sense that the all-powerful witch who made the warriors flee managed to do any of this, 'sneaking' by horse in the middle of the steppe.
Suggested correction: Mulan used the helmets of the fallen warriors to make it appear that a large force has flanked Rourans. Rourans didn't expect this new "force" and knew nothing about it. They didn't know its size. And while their original target seemed harmless, this new "force" was killing Rourans. Fear and death were the reasons. What you see in this scene is an enactment of one of Sun Tzu's famous quotes: "All warfare is based on deception. [...] Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected."
What we see in the scene is laughable, and not because of the idea, which surely is based on the profound strategic motto you mentioned and we find in many folkloric tales in other cultures as well; what we actually see in the movie, is that she grabbed a couple helmets lining them up on a rock, and she shot a few arrows. Then she stops shooting, and we see helmets knocked down in their full view. The movie truly surpassed itself in showing it in the most phony way; had they shown her shooting from behind the rock responding to their fire, or the helmets not falling, or them just shooting at mist, terrified, it would have maybe worked. It's an enormous overreaction. That and, under no circumstance trebuchets are used that way anyway. And she did all this setup unseen, again.
In response to death, nothing is an enormous overreaction. Something or someone was killing them. They wanted to kill it, and they didn't have time for Facebook's famous brand of pseudo-myth-busting. What if they knew it was one girl shooting at them? They'd still have done the same. Being killed is a very personal matter.
9th Sep 2020
Plot hole: The 'avalanche scene' in this remake is mind-boggling. For starters, the Witch single-handedly holds the whole Chinese army at bay splitting in a zillion of flying creatures - a power level completely inconsistent with the rest of the movie. To the annoyance of being pounced by little birds, the army gets in turtle formation, apparently just waiting it out. The Rourans somehow are ready for this and have a trebuchet set up - despite the fact that they are nomads, conquered the forts infiltrating them, and they were skirmishing a moment before. They throw flaming boulders with such precision that they are able to target each single 'testudo', multiple times, with the soldiers just sitting there with no reaction.To save them, Mulan is able to sneak behind them UNSEEN, by horse, with a bunch of extra helmets she somehow carried, set them in place, and fool them. Any of these convoluted operations would have taken an impossibly long time.
Suggested correction: This entry does not mention any plot hole in all of this. All this entry does is explaining what happened in the film and then ridiculing it. For example, the Rourans weren't "somehow" prepared for it; it was their plan from the start. Being mind-boggling is not a mistake.
"Any of these convoluted operations would have taken an impossibly long time" is not a plot hole? They were not expecting a field battle (the scene literally starts with them saying "They left the garrison!", so were thinking of an entirely different fight), they somehow just happened to have those never-seen-before trebuchets in the middle of nowhere and have them ready for a usage that is out of their capabilities. I could have split the entry in a couple different ones, but the scene is the same and I think they provide adequate context to what happens with the chain of unpredictable and illogic (even in the 'magic' of the movie world) events.
I'll answer your first question: "'Any of these convoluted operations would have taken an impossibly long time' is not a plot hole?" In another mistake entry, you've complained that Rourans took their sweet time, and called it another mistake. So, according to yourself, no, it is not a plot hole. Clearly, you didn't like the movie and write just about anything to trash it.
Apples and oranges; you are comparing an inconsistency in the length/scale of a military campaign with the feasibility of operating a trebuchet, (inconsistent even in the same scene) as if the two could be related in any way. I could write a review if I wanted to simply 'trash' the movie, let's not try to attach motives when someone points out an inconsistency, it's not an attack to the movie per se, or to the viewers who liked it. Some things about this movie do genuinely puzzle me, sure.
9th Sep 2020
Factual error: Not only Mulan's horse is able to outrun an avalanche (at the beginning even unseen by the large enemy army who does not even notice the event occurring), but it also gallops through it undisturbed while Honghui is being carried away depicted as being in serious danger. (01:09:30)
Suggested correction: This is consistent with what you see throughout the whole film: Mulan consistently breaks the laws of physics because her "Chi" is strong. (Translating it to the Star Wars lingo: Strong with her The Force is.) Five minutes before (video time, not in-film time) she reversed the flight direction of a spear. This is a fantasy film and is supposed to do all of this; we watch it knowing that magic, "Chi", and The Force are not real.
That's a composition fallacy.
9th Sep 2020
Plot hole: At the beginning of the movie it is said explicitly by the Chancellor that the Rourans have attacked 6 garrisons at once, disrupting trade on the Silk Road, which would, in his words, threaten the survival of the whole Empire. It's a bit odd considering that their assault relies on the Witch's abilities, and she can't be everywhere at the same time, but forgetting that; the Emperor to counter this urgent menace (Bori Khan slaughters everyone in the cities) decides to summon to arms literally the whole kingdom amassing a huge army. This obviously is a project that takes months (we even see Mulan taking days just to get to the training spot, and then they train long enough to become proficient in archery when they started off not able to even throw an arrow) and does absolutely nothing to stop the brutal raiding and killing, but somehow Bori Khan's plan is kindly waiting on Mulan and her buddies to train, despite being a plan based on speed, surprise and distraction.
Suggested correction: First, it is not fair to cram so many "mistakes" into one entry. Second, it is your personal assumption that all six attacks relied on the witch. Third, she can transform into a bird and fly; certainly, she can catch up with multiple attack forces if needed. Fourth, it was an empire, not a kingdom; a super-massive empire called China. Fifth, training a relief force is also part of the call to arms. Where there is a battle, there is death. Dead units need to be replaced. Sixth, "speed" didn't come into play in the strategic aspects of warfare until World War II. At the time of this film, they were tactical elements. Wars went on for years, sometimes decades. China was a huge empire and conquering it quickly is impossible. Seventh, you've already explained the reason behind Rourans' delay into another mistake entry you posted: They were carrying catapults and they had practiced using them.
Entry is articulate because they are not separate mistakes, it's just that the "strategy" employed by the invading army and the response to it is all over the place and contradictory (1). They show and say in every possible way that the reason garrisons fall so quickly is because of the witch intervention and they depend on her (2). Catapults are never shown as being used for city assault (7), and it's obvious why; walls are bypassed, cities don't take months and huge armies to be taken, they fall in minutes (6). The climax of the movie itself happens with the invading army crushed, the Emperor knowing it, but their plan is perfectly successful, since they made it through the super-massive kingdom from the Silk Road battle, without being able to fly, simply outmaneuvering everyone with a tiny group of jedis (3-4-6 again). See original entry for why 5 is absurd;anything else I mentioned was not flavour or additional mistakes, but just context.
14th Apr 2020
Der Kampf gegen den Drachen - S1-E3
Plot hole: Shiryu states that the Dragon Cloth, which has been 'for eons' under the waterfall (let's just say it's an exaggeration) is harder than diamond and invulnerable to any attack. In the original manga and anime series, Pegasus uses a sudden dodge during a daring grapple to get Shiryu to strike his own shield with the glove of the armor, shattering both ("invincible sword meets invincible shield") and causing him to fight barechested. In this remake, this whole part does not happen, so when Seiya wins the fight with a heart punch like in the other versions, he does it when Shiryu has his heart still covered by the thick breastplate of the armor, making the whole "Shiryu's armor is impervious to any hit and much stronger than any other Cloth" plot point completely moot.
Suggested correction: It is only said that the "Dragon Shield" is unbreakable.
No, says much more than that. "That might be true for other armors, but the Dragon Armor is special. Nothing can get past my shield. It's unbeatable. The day my Cosmo forced the waters of the Lushan to flow upwards, it revealed the Dragon Armor. Battered for eons by the falling water, the Armor had grown harder and more radiant than a diamond. My Armor is the hardest substance known to man. No matter how fast or hard you strike, you've lost, Seiya." He parried the blow with the shield and so that deserves a special mention, but they keep mentioning the armor as having intrinsic properties, and he is wearing the armor when he is struck by Seiya, which guards his heart. In the original anime and the manga he was armorless after Seiya wrecked it, in here it's intact. It makes no sense, which is why I categorize it as a plot hole and not just as Character error: it's not that maybe he's wrong about the armor, it's the whole situation that now is flawed reprising the original with key differences.
19th Mar 2020
Character mistake: Dissecting the chrysalis, Dr. Roden says that "Somebody grew this guy. Fed him honey and nightshade." Nightshade is indeed one of the typical plants eaten by the Death's head moth, but since "he" is only a pupa, would have not eaten honey, which is something only the adult specimen eats. (00:48:50)
Suggested correction: I don't see this so much as a mistake, but rather a shortcut so there would be no need to explain the entire metamorphosis process. Feeding "it" would refer to the larva stage, necessary to reach (grow to) the pupa stage. "It" may have transformed, but "it" is still the same "it." The men working there are experts and would know what he means, not interrupt and say, "Pupae don't eat, dumb @$$." Likewise, having to specifically say that someone fed the larva "honey and Nightshade" so that it would become that pupa doesn't seem to be necessary given the nature of the film. [And the larva - not just "adults" - might eat honey.].
Sorry, I don't really understand the point of the first part (like, 90%) of the correction; at no point I was disputing the concept of 'feeding a pupa', but just what it could have eaten to be raised to that stage. The only relevant part of your correction is that last phrase; "And the larva might eat honey." Which is not how it works from what I understand. If you want to correct this entry, please dispute that aspect; I never bred bugs (...on purpose!) and surely not of that kind, but the larvae of that species are strictly herbivores, and the honey plays into their diet only later in life - to the best of my knowledge they can't even process it at that stage. Assuming it can (which I have no particular reason to believe), it would be an exception and not what an entomologist would say to describe a well raised specimen. For what it is worth, also, Harris' novel never mentions honey, but specifically leaves, although it's a different plant.
Sorry if I misconstrued what you were trying to say. By writing that the pupa would not eat something only the adults eat, you left the impression that the pupa eats other things (just not the honey). I think I understand now. Your answer is specific to the honey and my response addressed how much information the experts needed to present about metamorphosis and food/no food to the audience. I hope this helps you understand at least some of that 90%.
Stupidity: When the Turtles are leaving the junkyard they rescued Raphael from, the incredibly agile ninjas of the enemy clan can't simply jump over a van, or just slide over the hood. (00:54:00)
Suggested correction: Remember at the beginning of the film, one of the clan members is angry that so many of their members were arrested. They have been looking hard for new recruits. The new recruits won't be as good right away.
1st Sep 2003
Corrected entry: When the time traveling first beings, it is explained that the dynamo and the high ranking people in the palace speak English because of the trade and western influence of their partnerships with the westerners in the movie. But later in the movie, all the common towns folk speak english with the turtles and rarely use japanese.
Correction: Those aren't 'common townsfolk', those are members of a rebellion. It stands to reason they'd 1)learn a language used by their enemies to better understand what they're plotting, and 2)refrain from using a language their guests can't understand.
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: When Mando said traveling at sublight speed was dangerous, he was talking about for himself. He wasn't trying to be sneaky in hiding her because of who she was, he was trying to avoid the New Republic at any cost. Telling her to be quiet was so there wouldn't be an extra reason to force him to the outpost.
Bishop73
Logically it would not be an extra reason since all they check and ask for is the ship's data and if he mentioned that he had a female aboard who needed to deliver her offspring, they probably would have let him go more easily without getting too much into technicalities, however I don't want to move into alternative writing and speculation. Mando did not exactly keep a poker face in the circumstance but it's not out of line with the character and he was acting on impulse without a plan. I am fine with the correction, actually.
Sammo ★