Poisonous cannot be the reason for an intelligent species to avoid. In fact it would be a challenge to investigate, explore and use that poison. Humans would do anything to conquer a place two third uranium or petroleum.

Exactly. There are so many reasons why they might attack a dangerous planet. Greed being a big one.

@JustinJackFlash said:

But perhaps we as a moviegoing public aren't always as clever as we'd like to think we are either.

Very well said! Below is a copy of one my own replies from years past, which I repeated in various versions many times over the years to shortsighted posts just like you address here.

Who said they "Managed to invent intergalactic travel"? Perhaps they found whatever means of transport they used. Or who says that the creatures sent down aren't the equivalent of trained monkeys or dogs? Or weren't prisoners from another species? Or created in a lab for cannon fodder? Or that their “ships” were actually ships at all? Or that they were even intergalactic, as opposed to interdimensional? We have no idea where they came from, how they got here (we never even actually see a ship, merely lights in the sky and an invisible tangible field in the sky a bird flies into), or what their circumstances are. It can only be seen as a possible story problem if you make assumptions and apply your own preconceptions and expectations onto what you’re experiencing.

Remember, the entire point of the story is that “everything happens for a reason according to God’s will”. That alone quashes any perceived “plot holes”. Why were the aliens sent down to the surface naked? Because God wanted them to be. That’s the internal logic we’re presented with as it exists within the context of the story’s universe. And it trumps everything.

Also, it quite clearly wasn't H2O that harmed them. It was the specific mixture of ground water on Earth that harmed them. Otherwise, the fog, moisture on the ground, etc. would have been a problem. We're directly shown that it isn't, while being shown that water from an underground aquifer and up through a faucet did harm them, and we're told they avoided "bodies of water", i.e. mineral-enriched ground water, with a solution specific to Earth, and clearly only in quantities sufficient enough to be poured from a glass. Ever put a dab of bleach on your skin compared to pouring a glass of it over your arm, especially if you’re particularly allergic? It’s the difference between no reaction at all to permanent disfiguration, a difference that may very well look like what happens in the movie. H2O itself wasn't their problem. It was Earth-specific ground water that was.

The "no clothes" bit is the most viable question to ask, though. But there's so little information, the answer could be anything, which nullifies it as a legitimate complaint from an objective standpoint. Plus, God’s plan supersedes all else. If we think about it logically, however, clothes are a strictly human conception. No other species we know of wears clothes, although some do commandeer shells and wear them. Additionally, stealth when prowling around on the ground was clearly an objective, and we’re shown that they have a natural ability to camouflage by reflecting their surroundings. Wearing clothes would have completely negated this benefit. Plus, culture plays a huge role in clothing. It may simply be a concept their culture never developed, or that prefers against it in lieu of stealth, with their organic camouflaging ability being a major factor. Even among humans here on Earth there are cultures that wear very little or no clothes at all, even in some harsh jungle environments.

Having said that, like any work of art viewers are free to feel how they choose, and no one likes every movie they see.

@warrior-poet said:

Very well said! Below is a copy of one my own replies from years past, which I repeated in various versions many times over the years to shortsighted posts just like you address here.

Who said they "Managed to invent intergalactic travel"? Perhaps they found whatever means of transport they used. Or who says that the creatures sent down aren't the equivalent of trained monkeys or dogs? Or weren't prisoners from another species? Or created in a lab for cannon fodder? Or that their “ships” were actually ships at all? Or that they were even intergalactic, as opposed to interdimensional? We have no idea where they came from, how they got here (we never even actually see a ship, merely lights in the sky and an invisible tangible field in the sky a bird flies into), or what their circumstances are. It can only be seen as a possible story problem if you make assumptions and apply your own preconceptions and expectations onto what you’re experiencing.

Remember, the entire point of the story is that “everything happens for a reason according to God’s will”. That alone quashes any perceived “plot holes”. Why were the aliens sent down to the surface naked? Because God wanted them to be. That’s the internal logic we’re presented with as it exists within the context of the story’s universe. And it trumps everything.

Also, it quite clearly wasn't H2O that harmed them. It was the specific mixture of ground water on Earth that harmed them. Otherwise, the fog, moisture on the ground, etc. would have been a problem. We're directly shown that it isn't, while being shown that water from an underground aquifer and up through a faucet did harm them, and we're told they avoided "bodies of water", i.e. mineral-enriched ground water, with a solution specific to Earth, and clearly only in quantities sufficient enough to be poured from a glass. Ever put a dab of bleach on your skin compared to pouring a glass of it over your arm, especially if you’re particularly allergic? It’s the difference between no reaction at all to permanent disfiguration, a difference that may very well look like what happens in the movie. H2O itself wasn't their problem. It was Earth-specific ground water that was.

The "no clothes" bit is the most viable question to ask, though. But there's so little information, the answer could be anything, which nullifies it as a legitimate complaint from an objective standpoint. Plus, God’s plan supersedes all else. If we think about it logically, however, clothes are a strictly human conception. No other species we know of wears clothes, although some do commandeer shells and wear them. Additionally, stealth when prowling around on the ground was clearly an objective, and we’re shown that they have a natural ability to camouflage by reflecting their surroundings. Wearing clothes would have completely negated this benefit. Plus, culture plays a huge role in clothing. It may simply be a concept their culture never developed, or that prefers against it in lieu of stealth, with their organic camouflaging ability being a major factor. Even among humans here on Earth there are cultures that wear very little or no clothes at all, even in some harsh jungle environments.

Having said that, like any work of art viewers are free to feel how they choose, and no one likes every movie they see.

Good stuff and well argued.

@Damienracer said:

No one goes to work for a vacation either but they don't expect to be electrocuted to death while using the office computer lol.

Not quite sure what you're saying here, D-race. And no, an office worker probably wouldn't expect too much of a risk from his workplace. But a fireman might expect the possibility of burning to death, a soldier might expect to get shot and an astronaut (which is essentially what the aliens are from their point of view) could expect any number of dark fates.

Lionel Pritchard and the Wolfington Brothers