Many people are trapped in the narrative logic vicious circle, just like "some three-body people" have spent a lot of effort trying to explain the unclear parts of the movie by various means, but when thinking about this part of the logic, there are some first things. One point needs attention.
Doubt 1: What did universe A and universe B exchange?
The known exchange contents of the AB universe are:
AB space station (where A space station fell into the sea of B sphere)
The AB crew (part of the physical existence, part of the mental power exists in the ship, can know what is happening in the ship, and can control some parts of the spacecraft) among them, the B crew, who exists in the spirit, can recover their own body by capturing the body of the A crew. (The arm of a curly-haired man who can crawl on its own is from Universe B. Similarly, the eyeballs of Russian men are from Universe B and have their own consciousness)
Obviously, the exchange of the mass of only one space station cannot lead to the exchange of extremely large monsters in universe A, and in the final exchange, when the spacecraft of universe B arrives in universe A, the volume of the spacecraft does not change, which is very good. Some people's "high and low dimensional theory" can only be said to be a forced explanation without understanding the movie.
So here comes the second question: If the monster is not due to exchange, how does it appear?
Regarding the argument that monsters may appear in Universe A in the form of exchange, the whole article is only based on the YY of a certain "science fiction writer" in a TV interview, without any substantive evidence, and based on the viewpoint of the conservation of quality in the two transitions. Obviously, it is not true that a space station is exchanged for a monster that looks like a mountain.
In other words, the appearance of monsters in Universe A has nothing to do with the two conversions of the space station. The two are completely independent events. It's like a volcano on the earth erupted when you were eating apples, but you can't say that the volcanic eruption was caused by your eating apples.
(Theology comes from this way to a large extent. In two unrelated events, one has to infer a reason. In the end, what else can be explained apart from GOD?)
Then there is only one question in the end: why do people still like to use various theories to analyze this movie?
It’s human nature to explore the unknown. Just as the whole film has too much content that is not logically self-consistent, the analysis is very "predictable", and it is more convenient to apply various theories for analysis, but I guess this is the original intention of JJ. , As a user commented on the site, JJ just found a bunch of mediocre scripts to put on some clover eggs, and the originally nothing new content also caused a group of people to look at it with a magnifying glass.
Finally, name some "three-body people" who have to move out of the three-body set wherever they go. After using the three-body logic indiscriminately, they still don’t forget to compliment themselves. "Sure enough, the director/editor/producer of XX is also a fan of the three-body system. ", extremely ridiculous.
View more about The Cloverfield Paradox reviews
