Tag Archives: Sci-Fi

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) – An analysis

3 Aug


“It’s the end of the world and he’s upset about a dead pig.”
Emmett about Howard (10 Cloverfield Lane)

10 Cloverfield Lane -Introduction

One of my most read blog entries on Andy´s Mercury Comments is my analysis of The Mist (2007). I guess more people than me saw that movie as an interesting piece.

Since that one was such a success, Ill try to do a “blood-relative sequel” to that blog entry, by now analyzing 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016). Is it as good as The Mist? No, not really. But it has it´s moments, touches on some of the same themes, and there are questions that at least I felt was left unanswered.

The main question I had at the end was: Was Howard really the bad guy?

Let´s look at the movie again, and look for the pros and cons of Howard being the villain in the movie. I will also talk a little bit about the ending, and how I didnt like it. I expect you have seen the movie, when reading this. Meaning there will be spoilers.

Also, you may be thinking “AndyAce83 looks to much into a stupid movie” or “its just a movie, why do you care?” and all that other nonsense. If you dont care, then dont read it.

10 Cloverfield Lane -Plot summary

The story is about a woman (Michelle) who leaves a relationship with a man. She seem to think that it´s cuz “she flees the problems”, perhaps cuz she grew up with a violent dad. She then get run out of the road by a car and wakes up in a bomb-shelter, tied to the wall. In there she meets Howard, the builder of the bomb shelter, who tells her that the world has gone to hell, for reasons not specified. The bombshelter also have another inhabitant, the easy going, sympatic Emmett who forced himself into the shelter when he knew problems where coming.

They live in this bombshelter for an unknown amount of time. At times it is nice and at times it goes well, and at times they fight, and it gets clear that Howard is suffering from some kind of mental problems. He shows anger and a need for control. Sometimes downright threatening behavior.

It is then revealed that Howard had a daughter as he shows Michelle a picture of her. Michelle then sees signs of dangerous activity in a closed down room where someone has scribbled “help me” on a window and some bloody ear-rings. Emmet says that the daughter in the picture is not really Howard´s daughter, but a girl who had gone missing. A girl named Britney.

This leads to the conclusion that Howard is a mentally unstable murderer and that Emmet and Michelle needs to flee. Their escape plans is stopped though as Howard discovers a home-made hazzard suits. In a confrontation Howard shots Emmet, a struggle follows where Howard is badly burned and blown up in the bombshelter, while Michelle leaves the shelter only to discover that Howard was right. There has been an alien attack. She goes into a big show down with the aliens, killing a space-ship like creature and drives away. On the radio she hears pleads for assistance and she decides that drive towards that. Implying she no longer runs away from her problems.

10 Cloverfield Lane -The analysis

Michelle: What are you gonna do to me?

Howard: I am gonna keep you alive.

When we analyse a movie, as with most intellectual pursuits, we have to ask the question: What do we really know? What did we really see? Which of the characters can we really trust? Who´s narration can we belive?

In 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) we see certain things and other things are told to us. Scriptwriting 101 says “show it, don´t tell it” and so it is reasonable to belive that if something isnt shown there may be a reason for it.

It may be cuz we are not suppose to know (like what was in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction (1994) or what was in Norman´s diary in Psycho (1960).) or it may be just because of temporary suspense. 

Like Hitchcock himself said:

“There is a distinct difference between “suspense” and “surprise,” and yet many pictures continually confuse the two. I’ll explain what I mean.

We are now having a very innocent little chat. Let’s suppose that there is a bomb underneath this table between us. Nothing happens, and then all of a sudden, “Boom!” There is an explosion. The public is surprised, but prior to this surprise, it has seen an absolutely ordinary scene, of no special consequence. Now, let us take a suspense situation. The bomb is underneath the table and the public knows it, probably because they have seen the anarchist place it there. The public is aware the bomb is going to explode at one o’clock and there is a clock in the decor. The public can see that it is a quarter to one. In these conditions, the same innocuous conversation becomes fascinating because the public is participating in the scene. The audience is longing to warn the characters on the screen: “You shouldn’t be talking about such trivial matters. There is a bomb beneath you and it is about to explode!”

In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.”

In this quote we can learn a lot about narration, why something is revealed and something is left out. I would like to add though that sometimes supsence can be kept by also NOT showing something. That in narration, what isnt shown, but told isnt always true, and may be deliberate ways of keeping suspense or keep us guessing.

Keeping this quote in mind, let´s look at what we see and not see in this movie to ask the question: Who is really the villain in 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)?

Violent or reasonable?

Violent or reasonable?

The first thing I noticed is that although it is clear that Howard is on edge and suffers from some kind of mental issues, never do we see him behave violent towards Michelle. She is violent towards him on several occasions, but he is only violent towards Emmet. At least not before things excalate to complete chaos towards the end. And even then, he doesnt really hurt her. IF that is just pure luck for Michelle or his intentions is left uncertain.

It also seem to be a misconception that the first loud crashing sound we hear, before introducing Emmet as a character, is when he tried to get in. But that is not the case. That is the sound of Emmet destroying one week of food, for reasons never explained other than he “is sorry for that”.

We never see Emmet fighting his way into the bunker. It is said that by Emmet that he bruised his arm when that event took place, but again, we did not see that happen and the question then is: If that is false, why is Emmet the one who looks like he has been in a car accident? In fact Howard shows no signs of being in the accident that he says he was a part of.

Also the suspicion Michelle has towards Howard is from the very beginning. She tells Emmet her concerns, before he puts any seeds in her mind. She tells him that she was run off the road by Howard. She thinks she is been kidnapped, even when all evidence point to the fact she is not. She seems to be looking for evidence that Howard is evil.

Stop Talking!

Stop Talking!

We often observe Howards reaction as psychopathic in nature. He is angry, semi-paranoid, demands respect and becomes more and more unhinged as the story progresses. But saying he is a psychopath one also is forgetting that he is under a lot of strain himself. He is not happy being in the bombshelter either. Which we see when Emmet makes a joke about how long they may be staying there. The clenching of the fist may seem threatening, but it can also be a sign of claustrophobia.

What many people seem to think is the clear reveal of Howard´s villinous behaviour is when he shoots Emmet after he says he wanted the gun. It seems cold and is a violent act. That may be true, in peace times. But this movie takes place in a more extreme situation. Howard is a millitary man. He sees the bunker as his ship. He even says so at one time. “All on deck.”

In the military one is taught that one has to deal with mutiny is a very harsh manner. Cuz if people do not follow orders, that could lead to even more dangerous events. Like we see at the end, when the entire “safe space” is blown up cuz of Michelle´s mutiny.

What I am trying to say is that although we see this as a harsh and immoral act, we see this with civilian eyes in peace time. They do not live in that context. They live in war times, with limited resources with a group of people conspiring against each other. Howard may have acted by a moral-code for survival, not a humanistic one we are used to.

Also I dont think that Howard doesnt show regret and pain after he shot Emmet, as he is clearly even more unstable and childlike (regression) after the events.

So why do I think Emmet may be more insidious than what is seen explicitly? The first reason is that he is the only one who looks like he has been in a car accident. His wounds also seem to have had proper care at the hospital. His arm in the sleeve looks professionally taken care of. Also he is the only one who shows ability for manipulation as when he manipulates Howard into thinking the showercurtain may be contaminated or when he windes up Howard at the dinner table. He does seem to be biding his time, looking for a good time to take control of the bunker. And what he states just before he is shot; “I wanted your gun. So I was thinking about making a weapon, to get it.. From you. I wanted her to respect me, the way she respects you.” could just be the truth. Perhaps he believed his “honesty” and apology would be accepted. So he wasnt playing a hero, but tried to manipulate again. But all in all, not very much evidence to go on.

Fear? More like teenage boredom.

Fear? More like teenage boredom.

But if we think that Emmet has his own unstated agenda, then its more safe to assume that he is lying when telling Michelle that the girl in the picture with Howard is not his daughter. A statement that is the catalyst for Michelle disbelief in Howard. If we look at the picture of the girl in the picture, do she really look like she has been kidnapped?

And if we look again at the other evidence of the written “help” window. Michelle says it was written on the inside of the window, but

Written on the inside or the outside?

Written on the inside or the outside?

to me it does not look so at all. It´s written in mirror image. Of course it could be possible that the girl was smart enough to write in a way that was easily read on the other side, but still it´s written the wrong way. My theory is that this is written by the crazy women from earlier who tried to get into the bunker. She even started to bleed when she bunked her head into the window, which could explain the blood. Although this goes against Michelle´s statement, which was that it was written on the inside of the window.

The way I see it there are three possible interpretation of this movies event.
1) That Howard was the psychopath as he is clearly the most unstable.
2) That Emmet is the subtle manipulator, growing the seeds of suspicion in Michelles mind wanting to take over. But he failed at his last attempt at manipulation. Perhaps not recognizing the extreme situation and Howard´s military background.
3) Neither of the men are really dangerous, but Michelle´s baggage from her childhood makes her paranoid, which causes all of the conflict in the bombshelter.

After writing this I am starting to lean on the last one.

10 Cloverfield Lane – Original script

After writing this analysis I decided to read the original script called “The Cellar” to see if anything was made clearer in that script and to do some reality checks. Was I reading something into this movie not intended? Am I trying to hard to make a simple story more complex than it is?

A script is the blue-print to a movie, but sometimes radical changes is made to the original idea. This seem to be the case with this script.

“The Cellar” made Emmet (called Nate in the script) a unsympathetic character who wants the control and gets the control after he gets the gun. When he gets control he is rude and dominating.

Michelle is less sympathetic as well as she distrusts Howard instantly, and never trust him in the entire story. She also has loyalty to Emmet/Nate for reasons that seems to be that he is more handsome than Howard.

At the end of the story its made very clear that Howard only had good intentions for Michelle, but her hatred for her father clouded her judgement.

This could be what 10 Cloverfield Lane tries to tell also, but more subtle. But I guess that is just a guess.

10 Cloverfield Lane – The ending

Would this have been the best ending? Just a cut to black after that?

Would this have been the best ending? Just a cut to black after that?

Although its not relevant to my main analysis I still feel I should give my thoughts on the ending as I really felt it crashed a lot with the rest of the movie.

Most of this movie is a suspense thriller about people attacking each other in extreme situations. Very well made too, I must say. But after Michelle flees the bomb-shelter the movie changes from thriller to sci-fi action movie. The change is abrudt and rather strange.

I would have preferred a more quick ending or at least a more ground based one. It just becomes too comic-book like. I could accept and even understand the need for a bit of a monster-mash thrill as this is a Cloverfield-franchise movie. But even the original Cloverfield movie was far more ground-based in its action scenes than 10 Cloverfield Lane.

10 Cloverfield Lane -Conclusion

I may see too much in this movie. I admit that. But that is what I like to do. I think too many people look for flaws in films, instead of trying to think that the flaws or “plot-holes” may be intentional red-herrings. One needs to have a bit of trust in the movie makers.

I liked the movie, but felt the ending was a bit too much. I wish they could have ended it on a bit less action oriented way. The script ended rather anti-climatic. But something in between would perhaps have been the best.


If you liked this blog entry you can also watch my youtube videos “Doctor Dee and Me Talk About Movies and TV” where I talk about movies. Its not as focused as this entry though, but there may be some interesting perspectives there as well.


spilling eros

Blog 2.0 3D – Crazy is building your ark after the flood has already come.

Doc Dee N MeTalk About Movies And TV- Part 3: Do Sci-Fi have to be scientifically accurate?

6 Jun


In these Jurassic World times where Dinosaurs still dosent have feathers the important question is: Do Sci-fi have to be scientifically accurate? Here is Doctor Dee and me’s 2 cent.

Blog 2.0 3D - SCI-FI!

Blog 2.0 3D – SCI-FI!

Prometheus (2011) – A prequel for a sequel

15 Mar

“ There’s a man sitting with you today. His name is David. And he is the closest thing to a son I will ever have. Unfortunately, he is not human. He will never grow old and he will never die. And yet he is unable to appreciate these remarkable gifts for that would require the one thing that David will never have. A soul.”

– Peter Weyland ,Prometheus (2011)

Where someone sees plot holes, other see mystery. In Prometheus (2011) I saw both.

So now, when Prometheus 2 has been announced, and time has passed from the first film, I want to reflect on the movie´s good sides and bad sides. Of all movies I have seen, I think Prometheus is one of the movies I have been most ambivalent about. I kind of love it and I kind of hate it. The reasons, as with the meaning of this film, I will reflect on now.


I expect that the reader of this entry have already watched the movie as I will talk about spoilers. Also this is more of an analysis of the movie and not a “review” where I value it by giving thumps up or down. You can decide that yourself.

Also if you are thinking; “Its just a movie” I refer you to some weed smoking, the hand book “Being a dullard for dummies” and will beg you please not to talk to me again.

My expectations:

This is the Space Jokey as seen in the movie Alien from 1979. Although a very small piece of the original movie it created alot of mystery about it and fans have speculated loudly about what it was and what it did out in space.

This is the Space Jokey as seen in the movie Alien from 1979. Although a very small piece of the original movie it created alot of mystery about it and fans have speculated loudly about what it was and what it did out in space.

I remember when I heard that Ridley Scott was going to make a prequel to Alien (1979) where the genesis of the “Space Jokey” was going to be explored. It blew my mind. This very alien thing, that played a very minor role in the original Alien movie, has fascinated many and been inspiration for many sci-fi nerds like me to speculate as to what it exactly was and what it was doing on that dead planet. I waited with great anticipation in a way I havent done since christmas as a child. The POSSIBILITIES!!! The endless possibilities!

Then came the trailer for the movie and it blew my mind again.


Look at that great trailer!They came looking for our beginning, what they found could be our end.” The tag line still gives me goosebumps and the trailer is still awesome. When the movie got released I refused to read anything about the movie and went on the premiere alone to watch this movie. I never go to the movies alone, but I just had to watch it! I couldn’t wait a day for any friends to be able.

My initial response:

Big Questions

Big Questions

After watching the movie I felt I had watched a great extension of the alien franchise. I knew it would not be another alien movie and didnt expect more of it and what I got had just the right dose of xenomorphs-ishness to make me feel it was a spin-off and not a completely new movie series.

I loved the BIG questions the movie had asked. I loved how they treated religion and science. The character of Elizabeth Shaw is a sympathetic representation of at least how I as a Christian view sciences. And like most good movies it kept lingering on in my mind for days after watching it. I kept thinking about the different ideas it had presented and how the movie´s plot had developed.


It wasnt all that good, was it? Although when I walked out of the cinema I was very impressed, for the next days my pondering turned into nagging. The flaws I may have ignored at first became more and more apparent. This movie wasn’t very good. In fact it was kind of awful!

My secondary response:

Good or bad? I just don´t know. Pretty though. No doubt of that.

Good or bad? I just don´t know. Pretty though. No doubt of that.

As the days went passed I did something I hadn´t done in a long while. I started using my IMDB account again and started to read the Prometheus threads there. Reading the different views and trying to understand what to make of this movie. Was it a good movie or was it downright awful? I just couldn’t make up my mind.

Soo I watched the movie again when it came out on DVD and yet again I am not sure. I have not yet watched the extended cut of the movie (where “all questions would be answered”) although I have seen some of the scenes on youtube. Its been 3 years since the movie came out and I am still not sure what to make of it.

The plot:

A holograpic point presentation. Anything else is soooo... 2050.

A holograpic point presentation. Anything else is soooo… 2050.

Prometheus tells the story of a crew of scientist who travel to a distant planet after discovering clues and signs in different locations of earth all pointing towards that particular set of plantes. Their theory is that the planet they are going to will answer the biggest question of all: Why are we here?

As the story progresses the crew realizes that they were not prepared for what they could meet and different interest by different characters slowly sabotages the expedition leading to a big showdown where reasons and motivations are left ambiguous. The very end leaves most of the crew dead, answers left unexplained, problems left unresolved and Elizabeth Shaw leaving the planet with the android David to find another planet (and another sequel) where answers may or may not be given.

The Good sides to this movie:

It dares to ask questions!”, as Randy Marsh from South Park may have said. This movie, although not the first movie in history, ask the question “why are we here?”. The questions that arrises about creation or abiogenesis (from dead to alive).

To quote the character Peter Weyland from the movie

“ I have spent my entire lifetime contemplating the questions: Where do we come from? What is our purpose? What happens when we die? And I have finally found two people who convinced me they’re on the verge of answering them.

Which Star Trek episode is this from?

Which Star Trek episode is this from?

Big question and Prometheus uses the fringe theory of Ancient Astronauts as a way to explore and play around with this problems. The ancient astronauts in Prometheus are the “space jokey” men who it is implied came to earth and created us for some reason left unexplained in the movie.

This question is so big that any clear explanation will often be seen as too on the nose. I guess the blue men could have said “We created you to take care of the environment!” or “To love each other!” or some other simplistic view like that, but fortunately they leave that vague. Unfortunately they leave it so vague that we are not even given clues and food for thought. But complaints come later.

Reasonable faith

Prometheus also explores the relationship between religion and science. This mostly through the christian character Elizabeth Shaw, which I think is one of the more interesting aspects of the movie. The dialogue is not filled with ridicule of people believing in mythology and still does not seem anti-science either. My interpretation of this, is that it shares the same view as me, that one thing does not negate an other and all roads may lead to the truth as long as we keep seeking the truth and keep believing there is such things as the “truth”.

There is also many ways of interpreting “God” in this movie. God as in a ultimate “God” of beginning and end. He is only mentioned as the Christian God through Elizabeth Shaw, but could of course be any kind of ultimate being. Then it is the gods of creation, which is the blue men for humans, and humans for androids and everyone seems to hate each other.

The question is if the blue men have again been created by the some entity in the sphere seen at the beginning of the film or if that is just another space craft for the “space jokeys” and that they have spontaneously been created trough random events.

Most of the movie is us interpreting the characters motivations and listening to them interpret the aliens motivations. And the entire movie is like mixed bag of stupidity and brilliance. Like the extraordinary interesting dialogue between David and the bi-polar (?) scientist Charlie Holloway.

Charlie Holloway: What we hoped to achieve was to meet our makers. To get answers. Why they even made us in the first place.

David (an android): Why do you think your people made me?

Charlie Holloway: We made you because we could.

David: Can you imagine how disappointing it would be for you to hear the same thing from your creator?

"Why are we here?", Scott asks us. "To have painful abortions of alien creatures of course", he quickly continues.

“Why are we here?”, Scott asks us. “To have painful abortions of alien creatures of course”, he quickly continues.

Then David tries to “impregnate” Charlie in the same scene, and the grotesque aftermath of that. It feels more like body-horror shock piece than anything. The problem then is that Ridley Scott doesnt seem to know wether to make a philosophical piece about why we are here or to make another Alien movie with zombies and alien squids. These things come in contrast throughout the movie as its not scary enough to be a new alien and its not deep enough to be really good sci-fi adventure. It is somewhat entertaining though. The squid thing is nasty and the abortion scene couldnt be more disturbing.

The plot holes and the mysteries.

I have never been much for a nitpicker, although I have noticed that many people online likes to do nothing but. To point out any work of arts flaws, be it how Mona Lisa smiles or how ridiculously strong Jason Vorhees is, seem to be a great past time for some.

I guess it makes them feel better about themselves? Idunno. Myself, I try to watch a movie and accept premises of a movie if it is coherent with the story being told. Nitpicking, like being a grammar nazi, distract us from the point; The message, the meaning and the ideas that art and entertainment tries to give.

In Prometheus there are things I can accept and thing that I can´t. Somethings I agree with the criticism of and something I do not.

Alien Parasite in my eye? No worries and doctor needed.

Alien Parasite in my eye? No worries or doctor needed.

Take for instance how the planet was discovered in the beginning of the movie. A bunch of cavepaintings having the same stellar alignments and iconography. This I can accept. Of course it could have been elaborated on a bit, I guess, but how they got there is not the focus of the film. I can accept the premise of ancient civilizations having great knowledge of space as I can accept that the maya calendar ending means the world is ending or ancient astronauts creating us. Its an idea. Its a “what if”? Prometheus isnt and wasnt suppose to be a documentary. But a work of art or entertainment.

Alien controls kind of look like a child´s toy.

Alien controls kind of look like a child´s toy.

Some people seem to think that art should be slave to a sense of realness, but art isnt bound by rigorous logic (although coherent plot is nice) and sci-fi isnt science. Fiction is speculation, dreams and ideas, free from the shackles of what is. Like a unicorn is not a horse, or a goldmountain has yet to be discovered. They are concepts meant for food for thought, not dissecting for how much in sync it is with contemporary knowledge.

Good sci-fi ask questions that can´t be answered and tries to look beyond the curve of what we now know. Its not a tool for education as some seem to believe. Its about plausibility, not facts. And I for one, can accept the idea in this film that ancient cultures knew something that they could only explain trough mythology and signs.

Another thing that has been criticized is how the alien holograms look like. Even I found that stupid. On rewatching the movie now it appears to me that it may not be holograms at all but “particalogram”. They seem to be partially physical. They cause wind to rush and can press buttons. That isnt stupid, that is brilliant.

Many things in this movie can be both seen as plot-holes or mysteries. Stuff left unexplained for us to pounder on. This especially comes to the motivation of certain characters like David, Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron) etc. But other things, especially outcomes of certain events and natural human responses to threat seem often far fetched and/or annoying.

"Remember me as a mysterious woman who had daddy issues!"

“Remember me as a mysterious woman who had daddy issues!”

One thing especially that annoyed me was the “mysterious” Meredith Vickers who walks in the shadows and just observes everything. Then when push comes to shove they crush her by the spaceship cuz the movie needs to end and no character can live cuz that would be a loose thread.

If I were a Prometheus apologetic I could perhaps argue that the character was established as a very calculated woman who always thought more about her own safety and gain than other people and that when one unforeseen thing happened she got killed. But this is not thoroughly explored before hand, and the “mystery” of this character is not either thoroughly explained as no real pay-off was told. So when she finally get crushed at the end it just feels anti-climatic and pointless.

This scene was interesting. I kept wondering if it was all a big misunderstanding or if the alien got angry that humans had created life as well or if it was just fear of the pandemic.

This scene was interesting. I kept wondering if it was all a big misunderstanding or if the alien got angry that humans had created life as well or if it was just fear of the pandemic.

The same goes with Peter Weyland who also gets killed off rather fast and anti-climatic. This scene is arguably better though cuz it leaves the question of the Space-jockeys view and relationship to us unclear but clearly threatening. But two mysterious characters being killed off, without any real interesting pay-off by any of them makes some parts of Prometheus a real slap in the face.

Its fine to leave questions open, and its fine to have mystery, but then you can´t kill the characters off, as that ends the mystery. Death is the end, also to plot.

Some mysteries are also solved too quickly, as they seem to be just a nuisance for getting the plot along. David discovers and uncover stuff quickly for no reason. It seems that the “space-jokey” technology is fool proof and pressing random buttons makes everything work. Yes, David is an android and is very smart, but pressing random buttons and trial and error does demand SOME error.

And the Darwin award for 2093 goes to: Stupid guy who think he can pet strange alien thing.

And the Darwin award for 2093 goes to: Stupid guy who think he can pet strange alien thing.

Then it is the scenes with the crew members lost behind on the alien station that discover a pile of dead aliens and gets report of “something alive” only to get killed off while the captain was off with Theron, and no other crew member seemed to give a damn either. It just get so frustratingly annoying and stupid.

All in all Prometheus balances between what can be accepted in suspension of disbelief and then threads over with gusto. Its just too many big and small stupidities, many of them pointed out other places on the interweb. And when mystery is mixed with stupidity one tends to stop wondering cuz the answer may be just as dumb as some of these characters and events.

Peter Weyland: There's nothing. David: I Know. Have a good journey, Mr. Weyland.

Peter Weyland: There’s nothing.
David: I Know. Have a good journey, Mr. Weyland.

Prometheus II – Burnt child fears fire.

Like a burnt child, I fear to look forward to Prometheus II, but I do have dreams. I dream that Ridley Scott acknowledges that Prometheus had many flaws and tries to correct them somewhat in the sequel by some magic trick. I do not know how and its a feat I do not even think he has. How can one retcon so many flaws? Well, if its not going to correct the flaws of the first one, at least I hope it will not make so many more.

I still am looking forward to Prometheus II, cuz I am more like a burnt child with teaching disabilities.

Blog 2.0 - Not 4 Dullards

Blog 2.0 – Not 4 Dullards

Dullard for dummies have a special chapter on pointing out spelling and grammar mistakes when you have nothing to add to the argument.

Dullard for dummies have a special chapter on pointing out spelling and grammar errors when you have nothing to add to the argument. Also there is a chapter called: “TL;DR- Best comeback ever!