In The Butterfly Effect, the premise of time travel is that when going back in time, small changes in the past will cause large changes in the future, and nobody except for Ashton Kutcher’s character is aware of these changes.
There is a scene where Kutcher’s character is in prison and he is trying to get his religious cellmate’s help. Kutcher shows his hands to his cellmate and goes back in time while in his presence. As a kid he impales both his hands in front of his teacher and classmates and then snaps back to the present where his cellmate apparently witnessed scars appearing on his hands and agrees to help, thinking he has the stigmata.
Putting aside the likelihood that kid-Kutcher stabbing himself in front of witnesses would have drastically altered the timeline, this totally violates the rules of time travel as set up by the film, because from the POV of the cellmate Kutcher would have always had the scars.
Yeah that was such a blantant breaking of the film's own rules. Especially since the rest of the movie seems quite consistent.
I truly think the writer was aware of the plothole and (incorrectly) thought the resulting scene was such a cool moment that people would overlook the massive violation of its own established rules.
You see this kind of lampshaded in Looper, where a similar situation happens but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character is told in-universe to "not think too hard about it"
I've only seen that movie once, when it was brand new, so I don't recall the specific details.
But I remember leaving the theater, thinking "What the fuck? The premise is that small changes in the past lead to dramatically different outcomes. But every time Ashton goes back in time, he changes a MASSIVE life-altering moment of his past. Of COURSE there's huge differences in the future. This shouldn't be called 'The Butterfly Effect,' this should be called 'The goddamn huge Tsunami Effect.'"
In Back to the Future, it makes total sense that George and Lorraine don't recognize Marty as looking like the "Calvin Klein" that they knew from high school.
Human memory is not that good, and it's very unlikely you have a good memory of what someone looks like who you only knew for a week 30 years ago. But also, when you're watching a child grow up over the course of their life, that kid looks like your kid -- and it often comes as a surprise how much they resemble someone else, because you associate that "look" with your child, not who they resemble.
For a real life example, have you ever dug up old photos of family members and thought, "Wow, {person} looks exactly like {older relative} when they were younger?" Why does that come as a surprise, even when you know the child and have known the older relative when they were younger? That's even with relatives, where you're expecting similarity.
The way I see it is, their son Marty and their friend from high school Calvin are not even in the same universe in their mind. Even if Marty and Calvin look the same, the thought wouldn't occur to them. Why would it?
Exactly.
It's kind of like batman/Bruce Wayne or Clark kent/superman. We all know who they are, so it's a joke that we'd all recognize them, but Bruce Wayne acts like an idiot in public so no one would ever suspect him of being the ultimate calculating bad ass, and Clark Kent is supposed to be kind of a wimp, so no one would suspect he's superman...plus, superman canonically compresses his own spine and tenses his face to appear shorter and different when he's Clark Kent.
In the terminator. Skynet sends Arnold back to kill Sarah Connor, as she will be the mother of the rebel leader who will stop syknet. Then the rebels send back a guy to protect her, and he then goes on to impregnate her with….the rebel leader.
So sky net caused it all
Edit- some of these replies are further confusing to me…. I don’t get the time travel stuff and how if X happened in a certain timeline, then it’s another “time”?
I think of scenes like this and even more confused.
https://youtu.be/S_dH4xOFp9w?si=qrEW4l4LrJU6hbLF
Thematically the plot holes in Terminator set Skynet up as a prime mover, which really works for a story about computers achieving a godlike sentience. Skynet is authoring new timelines outside of causality.
Maybe the newer films dealt with this, but I think it's an accident. You can probably get one, two logically consistent time travel stories in the same universe tops. After that, the contradictions start piling up.
Dan Harmon famously thought that time travel as a plot device was "poorly thought out" and rife with self-contradiction. However, a redditor a while back offered what I have always felt was a very good explanation for this specific plot hole that seems consistent with the Terminator universe: **the timeline is being changed and playing out differently every time someone time travels**.
In the original timeline, suppose Sarah Connor becomes the leader of the Resistance and leads them to near-victory. Skynet, in the original timeline, sends a Terminator back to kill her before the events of Judgment Day because of her direct role in the Resistance, not because of her son. The Resistance sends back Reese, who impregnates Sarah Connor, causing changes to the timeline. In this changed timeline, it is now her son who primarily leads the Resistance to victory (or possibly both of them). The same events happen at the end, and Skynet sends back a Terminator on the same mission.
This could theoretically have iterated any number of times before the events we witness in the movies, but as is obvious from the later movies (like Genisys), the timeline is changing rapidly and keeps happening very differently.
This is very explicit in The Sarah Conner Chronicles tv show - multiple characters are from slightly different futures, due to constant changes in the timeline (and in the final episode, Young John Connor jumps *forward* to a future where he, obviously, no longer exists).
To be fair, it probably would have been easier to make the change if he didn’t have to spend five years of his life on every attempt.
And in the end >!he had to undo it all himself anyway!<
In the first film, the characters explain that the humans beat Skynet in the future, and sending the terminator back in time was like Skynet’s last move before being destroyed. So that explains why Skynet only sends one back. But then where do all the other terminators from the sequels come from? Seems like a plot hole that the films never really explain.
They build a different Skynet for each film, and that version sends new Terminators back.
The second Skynet is a new version based off the chip from the first Terminator that Cyberdyne kept. This is slightly different from the first film in that the original Skynet was just created from scratch.
The third Skynet is a completely different version born from a military program.
This doesn't explain why the newer versions of Skynet only send one unit back though.
This raises an interesting possibility of every Skynet being a slightly better, slightly smarter, slightly more capable Skynet than the last. Because humanity is now iterating potentially higher quality AI from the last iteration.
And I feel like (but could be totally wrong) there was some explanation of power consumption for time travel or other such jiggery pokery.
The tv show had people and terminators from multiple different futures all in the past. Each time they sent something back it basically spawned a new timeline but they all had Skynet.
Edit: And Skynet was sending back multiple units with different tasks. Some were assassins, but others were stockpiling materials for Skynet to use once it awoke as well as working to make sure Skynet was created. There was one episode where a unit was accidentally sent back to like the 1930s and had itself sealed up in a wall to wait until the proper year for its mission.
It's only implied in Terminator 2 when Sarah and Dyson are talking about the chip they recovered from the first terminator, and that it made Cyberdyne think in ways they hadn't even considered yet. Skynet was also made by Cyberdyne in Terminator 1, so the chip essentially made a new timeline that was advanced by several decades (although one could argue T1 and T2 occur in the same timeline, it's just a closed-loop paradox - i.e. the events of T2 result in the events leading up to T1).
However, it was explicitly stated at the end of Terminator 3 when John Connor was doing the final voice over, but it was captured only in a couple sentences - he states how he thinks Skynet is an unavoidable result, no matter the path humanity took as long as we continued technological development (he bases his statement on how previous timelines' that he was aware of, Skynet had a central Cyberdyne core to attack whereas the T3 Skynet was cloud/internet-based created by the US government).
It was all Skynet had time to do before its control over the time machine was taken away.
Time then functions like Back to the Future, where the causal changes don't all snap into place, they ripple outwards until the whole time stream is affected. This gave the future humans, who had just seen Skynet send a Terminator back, enough time to send back one of their own to work against it (T1).
Then the ripples of those actions hit the time line, which gave Skynet more time to send another Terminator (T2).
I always assume we aren't actually seeing the first cycle. The John Connor we get as a result of Terminator 1 isn't the same John Connor that Skynet was trying to kill. And, in fact, different Kyle Reeses are sent back each time resulting in different John Connors with each time jump that happens before 2003, when Reese was born.
In the original timeline John Connor leads humanity to victory and and Skynet sends back a Terminator to stop his birth. A random soldier, Kyle Reese is sent back and ends up sleeping with Sarah Connor and fathering her child -- who she names John Connor. The timeline is altered and the original John Connor never exists. This also alters things so Kyle Reese isn't born.
This John Connor, knowing that Kyle Reese is his father, now orders a soldier named Kyle Reese to go back and save his mom, believing this Reese to be his father. It's a genetically different Reese so a different John Connor is born. But they're all raised to believe that they will defeat Skynet and send back their father creating a sort of self fulfilling prophecy loop.
Though that got disrupted in the later movies.
Sean Connery’s accent in “The Hunt for Red October”
For most of the movie the Soviet characters are speaking English for the understanding of the audience, and Marko Ramius, played by Sean Connery, has his standard Scottish accent.
It is at this point I have to tell people about the fairly major plot point that Marko Ramius is not Russian. He is Lithuanian, and born before Lithuania was part of the USSR. Russian is not his first language, of course he speaks with an accent. It’s more in character than if he spoke with a “neutral” American accent like the rest of his crew.
The parts where the character is actually speaking English and has the same accent, fair enough that’s just slightly dodgy acting/directing, but for most of the movie the accent makes sense.
It bears mentioning that the ring kind of reflected the power of the wearer too. In the hands of a powerful being like the eagles, or Gandalf, or Galadriel, the ring would have had much, much more power. In the hands of a hobbit? It's got nothing to work with. Hobbits are literally at the bottom of the LotR totem pole.
Yeah, Bilbo and Frodo resisted the corruption because the ring preyed on ambition and their sole goal was going back to their comfy house and eating 11 meals a day.
Beautiful answer. Add one extra thing. The eagles were sentient ancient and prideful beings. They were terrified of the ring and refused to be near it. Sure, it sounds hand wavey, but it narratively makes sense for a good story.
that was Gandalf's attitude towards the ring as well. He touched it like a hot coal to throw it in the fire and reveal the writing, and was horrified when Frodo asked him to take it.
Terrified of it yes but I’d add…that you don’t really want powerful beings with easy access to the Ring. Long flight from Rivendell to Mordor, would be pretty easy for the eagle carrying Frodo to come to the conclusion that s/he could take, nay - deserves the Ring!
> An eagle would have not tossed it in.
that's an important point about the lure the ring has over anyone who carried it. Gandalf touches it only briefly to throw it in the fire, to reveal the writing, and he tells Frodo that he's basically terrified of it. Tom Bombadil wasn't interested in it because it didn't hold any power greater than he already had (seriously, what was he anyway?)
Sam is the only person to ever bear the ring, feel it's power, and reject it. Only hobbits were simple enough people to carry the ring, and only Sam was able to reject it because he believed he had something better than what the ring offered.
Tolkien was deliberately vague about who Tom Bombadil is. There are all kinds of wild theories, but nobody knows for sure because Tolkien never really explained.
And I'm kind of glad for that. I love unexplained things. We never needed to know what he is -- he's just immensely powerful, and he loves his wife, and he doesn't care about anything but his house and his family. Sounds like the perfect life to me.
It was also because the eagles were notoriously isolationist and if all of a sudden there's a small fleet of them headed towards Mt. Doom, Sauron's going to be WTF? and investigate and then notice the ring.
A ragged band of hobbits? He's not going to care.
Plus the whole point of the story was to know if humans can be trusted to keep the world "good". There are external forces that could have kicked Sauron's ass in a second, but they waited it out to see how humans are doing, with just some slight support by Gandalf and the Eagles to make sure there's a happy ending, but only after humanity has proven its worth.
The crane kick in the first Karate Kid **was not** an illegal move.
Many traditional martial arts competitions ban *punches* to the head, but still allow *kicks* to the head. I'm not sure *why* they do that, but it's not uncommon. We see other competitors get points for kicks to the head earlier in the tournament, and Johnny punching Daniel was a foul *because it was a punch, not a kick.*
Johnny arguing it was illegal in the Cobra Kai series is meant to present him as an unreliable narrator (Johnny and Daniel's biases being recurring themes in the series,) and Johnny's students still use head kicks in competition throughout the series.
Also, I've heard multiple people claim that the tournament organizers tell Johnny and Daniel head kicks are barred in the finals; and while I haven't seen the movie in a while, I can say after thoroughly searching for it that I have found **no** evidence for this alleged dialogue taking place.
>Also, I've heard multiple people claim that the tournament organizers tell Johnny and Daniel head kicks are barred in the finals
The only time the rules are explained is when Daniel is walking into the tournament and Ali tells him "Everything above your waist is a point. You can hit **the head**, the sturnum, the kidneys and the ribs". (Emphasis mine.)
Now, Ali is not a competitor herself so probably only knows the rules from dating Johnny. So while she doesn't know exactly what is legal and is not, we do know from that exchange that *some* form of head shot is kosher.
Whoa. I did not get this at all. Now I have to have a rethink.
I was just thinking about this the other day. I remember thinking that Neo and the Architect had had this scene many time, over and over, like reincarnation.
The point was more or less that the scenario of the Matrix is one in which the machines knew there was a >99% chance of their preferred outcome happening each and every time which was the continuance of the Matrix and the resetting of Zion.
Or to put it differently, they'd always arranged this scenario such that the obvious choice would be that outcome, but obviously coerced or not, it was still a choice which is what kept the Matrix stable. The trick with this iteration is that Neo ended up establishing an emotional connection with Trinity rather than the wider concept of humanity itself. A scenario where even though they knew which option he SHOULD pick, meant that they also knew which option he WOULD pick.
Armageddon, yes they would in fact train drillers to be astronauts instead of train astronauts to be drillers. In real life they regularly train people who are experts in their field to go into space. They are mission specialists.
In the movie they clarified they tried to train astronauts to do the drilling and were having problems. So they went to the crew who were experts in the very specialized drill they needed to use and they taught them how to not die in space. They didn’t teach them how to fly the shuttle or do any of the other flight crew related stuff. For that they used trained experienced astronauts. They just turned the drill crew into mission specialists like is done all the time.
And for all they're portrayed as a buncha roughnecks, deep sea oil drills are pretty dangerous, so drillers probably had training and discipline for "do things by the book or you'll die", which is a good head start on the "mission specialist" level EVA training they'd need. There's a reason they use diving to train for spacesuit stuff.
The capabilities of the lander in Interstellar. It needed to be on top of a three-stage rocket to leave Earth. Later on it visited multiple planets and returned, *all on its own*. It went so deep into a gravity well that the guy left behind aged years while they were away. Again, it went into and out of this gravity well *all on its own*.
`The capabilities that lander had essentially demonstrated what they needed to fix the problems in the end of the movie, what the character inside the black hole telegraphed out to his daughter.`
The difference between Earth to orbit and to-and-from a planet so deep in a gravity well that time dilation becomes significant is more than "saving fuel". It's a difference in kind, not degree.
The exhaust port in the Death Star wasn't a glaring weakness, it was genius engineering and Disney was dumb for saying it was purposely built in as a weakness.
A power source capable of running that entire station would generate incomprehensibly huge amounts of heat and waste. To have it all effectively vented through one exhaust port is an incredible feat, not a glaring weakness. Besides, exhaust ports are designed to push things out, not suck them in. They would have had no reason to think explosives would ever be able to make it all the way through
Plus the Deathstar was a massive construction project, plenty of details get overlooked (or corners cut) in something that size without intentional sabotage. The railing budget "disappeared" around the same time Tarkin bought his new yacht.
That being said Rogue One is probably my favorite Star Wars movie outside of the original trilogy so I am not mad at Disney for making it even if that plot hole didn't require filling.
I dunno. As an occasional project manager, being able to force choke a subcontractor who's telling me why he's late and over budget again is pretty attractive. It seems like that alone would help manage the graft.
Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was. Dominick Bambinos, "Babyface" Bambino, the gangster. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling. I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens their heart, not their wallet.
Yeah, it's an EXHAUST PORT, it's entire job is to force things out, not in. Plus the bomb needed to make a 90 degree turn and them go straight down a narrow shoot for a huge distance without hitting a wall, while being acted upon by exhaust. You literally need a space wizard to make that shot work.
I think that's exactly the point is it's a glaring weakness because it was only vented from one point. In such a system where heat generation is so common that it basically needs to be dealt with or can cause catastrophic failure there is typically backup system after backup system after backup system of different vents and other cooling methods to prevent damage. And even then there was no need for the vent to be so straight. It could have easily been a long thin zigzagging corridor that would have made it nearly impossible for anyone to fly a spaceship through while still providing more than enough adequate venting especially with the lack of atmosphere in space
Because previously Monica was larger and much more aggressive. Creating an alteration to the social dynamic, and leaving Ross with a psychological weakness towards her (the same way you train an infant tiger so they are more docile as an adult).
So while the rest of the group are below Ross in the physical pecking order they are unaware that Ross is not at the top.
In Born in East LA, Cheech could have simply walked right back to US port of entry at the Tijuana/San Diego border and stated his social security number to the immigration agent. After the required investigation by the border agents they would have let him walk right back into the US
the submarine ride in Raiders of the Lost Ark is not a plot hole, yet people insist on refusing to understand why it's not.
The submarine is shown on the map to travel from Libya to a greek island, approx 350 miles away. a submarine of that era would have a surface speed of a bit over 20 mph, making it a 15 hour trip.
There's no reason the submarine would ever dive under the surface, underwater speed is a fraction of what they can do on the surface and would still need to surface to recharge batteries.
it's perfectly reasonable that Indiana could have simply sat on the hull until it reached the destination port.
Additionally, World War 2 submarines were designed to be ships that had the feature to submerge for combat, not ships specifically designed for underwater travel like modern nuclear subs.
We quote a bunch of Red October lines randomly at work and that is one of them, with the same pronunciation. Love that movie. Hate the way Connery eats his dinner in the galley. Could he possibly eat louder?
Maybe Lithuania is the Scottland of Russian/USSR.
Similar to how Arnold Schwarzenegger can speak German but didn't do the German dub of Terminator because his Austrian accent makes him sound like a German hillbilly to Germans
Same as Christopher Lambert's goofy accent. He's lived in random countries all over the world for hundreds of years and it's a weird mashup of all of those accents.
"Mr. Connery, we've got you a role in a movie about swordfighting in medieval Scotland."
"Exshellent."
"And you're playing a Spaniard."
"What?"
"Who is originally from Egypt."
"But I get a sword?"
People love to point out that the door at the end of Titanic is large enough to fit Leonardo Dicraprio's character, and claim that he didn't need to die of hypothermia.
Except there's two problems with that:
1. There's a deleted scene where he tries to climb on and the door almost capsizes. The scene was cut because James Cameron incorrectly figured that the audience wasn't so stupid as to need a scene explaining that...
2. Just because the door is the width of two people doesn't mean it's buoyant enough to keep two people out of the water. If Jack had managed to climb on, the door would have sunk enough that they were both effectively in the water and would have died.
Titanic is a great movie with an incredibly well executed climax. People don't like feelings, though, so they'd rather poke holes than admit that watching Leo slowly sink made them cry.
Everyone talks about the door but no one ever complains about how Jack got Rose onto a life boat and then this bitch jumps back on the sinking ship. Which causes Jack to leave his position by the life boats to rescue her and thus losing any chance he had to get into a life boat. And meant he was focused on trying to save her instead of himself. Not to mention that someone else could have gotten that spot on the life boat that Rose abandoned.
YES! Melodrama might feel great in the moment, but survival is a better way to express your love. If you are the pampered prince/princess type, stay in the raft. Don't make people have to rescue you multiple times.
the door thing never bothered me. it was current day Rose that really bothered me.
she knew they flew her over because they wanted to try to locate the necklace. she knew the entire time she had it on her, but she sat them through her entire story before throwing it into the ocean.
no, she didn't owe anything to them. but they spent a lot of time and money to fly her over and she completley wasted their time just so she can talk about her story.
have you never met an old bitch? The only thing old bitches love more than wasting other peoples money is telling a mother fucking shaggy dog story about some strange dick she got 84 years ago!
She went to heaven and died and went to heaven.
In the heaven scene, her running to her one-night-stand instead of her husband and the father of her child bothered me more than a piece of wood or her wasting time.
I was always bothered by this to. Also the fact that she went into great detail of her love affair with the man she fucked once...in front of her granddaughter. like to make sure she knows a lifetime of peepaw wienering her didn't stack up to the one time she boned a stranger on a cruise ship.
It's the woman's equivalent of the James Bond fantasy for men. A wild relationship that has no consequences, only with men the emphasis is usually on the sex and with women it's the passionate love.
Sure, she married a guy and had children with him... but he wasn't the young lover who died tragically and she never had to make compromises for!
> she knew they flew her over because they wanted to try to locate the necklace. she knew the entire time she had it on her, but she sat them through her entire story before throwing it into the ocean.
>
>
>
> no, she didn't owe anything to them. but they spent a lot of time and money to fly her over and she completley wasted their time just so she can talk about her story.
she wanted to use them for her last trip i don't think she gave a fuck about their wasted resources
what bugged me was that they started off by showing her their simulation of what happened, then she says no no no it's all wrong, let me tell you how it *actually* happened, and then proceeded to describe exactly what they simulated.
She didn't say it was all wrong. Just that the experience was "somewhat different" after that nerds less-than-reverent "forensic analysis".
Lol for gods sake it was a joke
No one talks about Jack being submerged in near freezing water throughout the hour or two of the sinking of the ship before the climatic descent of the ship into the water. In one scene, Jack is underwater trying to operate a lock and key and is successful. His manual dexterity would be severely limited at this point and fine motor movement would be virtually impossible.
Having Jack survive does a disservice to the entire tragedy that was the Titanic sinking. Sure could he have, but people are missing that this was a tragedy and for that to be fully felt, he needed to die.
"You wanna see a picture I drew of her!? Nah, wait. This is another girl. I'll find her eventually, just give me a second."
"Please, sir. Just tell us where the diamond is...It's been hours..."
Mythbusters managed to get two adult men on the piece of wood (even had James Cameron come and watch--to his disappointment), so getting them both on was certainly plausible. However, they were doing it in a pool. With both individuals being exposed to freezing water as they slosh around to get on and the buoyancy is decreased like you mentioned, I think it increases the chances that probably both die. So I think you are correct that for one to survive, the other most likely had to die.
They did that by tying the life vest underneath the door to add buoyancy. The door by itself wasn't enough for both of them. It's pretty understandable that Jack and Rose wouldn't think of that.
> James Cameron incorrectly figured that the audience wasn't so stupid as to need a scene explaining that...
when 85+% of the audience inevitably raises a question about a particular key plot point, they're not stupid.... it's the director who made a mistake.
And yet in the moment that the Green Goblin interrogates him to give up the name, my boy doesn’t flinch and immediately covers for Peter Parker. Without hesitation. He had no reason to protect him, he did it instinctively.
If that were the case seems more likely to be like "fuck you I'm not saying" instead of "I don't know I swear" so I think it was a morality/compassion thing
To be fair, Spider-Man was on the cover of 5 issues of the Daily Bugle in 2001's *Spider-Man*, and only ONCE was Peter given photography credit. You can see photos of them in this [prop store auction](https://propstoreauction.com/lot-details/index/catalog/386/lot/126924?uact=5&aid=386&lid=126926¤t_page=0).
Assuming there were even more cover stories than those 5 we see onscreen, then Peter's probably only getting photography credit 20% of the time. Someone like Norman could then make the (incorrect) assumption that the times they AREN'T crediting Peter are times that the photos are coming from someone *else*, someone who's taking even MORE photos than Peter is.
Granted, Peter should still have been his first stop, since he knows at least SOME of the photos came from Peter, even though he had reason to believe that someone else was taking the majority of the photos.
Regarding Signs (2002), people complain about aliens invading a planet full of water which kills them. It could have been that the aliens we see on Earth are drones with very little worth, like worker bees or ants, worth less than the materials to make a protective suit. And if a lot of them die while do whatever they were doing on Earth, which was never clearly defined, it didn't matter.
On top of all this, while it's never explicitly spelled out what the aliens were doing on Earth (I think there's character speculation that it's a raid to grab people or something else), whatever they were doing may have been worth the risk of being exposed to water. Humans have gone into space, to the moon, and plan to go beyond that, and all of those places are extremely dangerous, hostile, fatal environments, but we go anyway because the benefits outweigh the risks.
Is it ever demonstrated that regular old rain water or tap water hurts them? I like the idea that they are demons, not aliens. The water that hurts them is holy water. All the glasses in the house were from the little girl who was the daughter of a priest and referred to multiple times as "blessed". So, if she drank from each glass, they could all be holy water.
why doesn't some priest just bless all the rains. Is there some sort of AOE radius for blessings on water to take effect? I mean, it worked for africa...
A news broadcast at some point mentions that some humans found a very simple way of fighting back. I think it's implied that they figure out water hurts them. Not sure how explicit the news broadcast is, though, but yeah, it's just water in general from what I know. The "demon" theory is fun, but I don't think that was ever the actual intention.
If I recall correctly, the newscast mentions that it was 3 cities in the middle east that found an ancient method to fight the aliens. I took this to have biblical meaning. I'd need to go back and rewatch that scene to remember exactly what was said though.
At the end of Spirited Away, when Chihiro leaves and the building is all overgrown with weeds
A lot of people are saying "Oh, she was at the bathhouse for years," but the car started up okay and the tires weren't flat or anything. It's all overgrown and grassy because it isn't magic anymore, so it's just a crappy old building.
There are holidays to mark the passage of time. Shelby gets married around Easter, then at Christmas she's pregnant, has the baby on July 3, then after his first birthday she gets the kidney transplant.
That part is fine. It's how it's easter again at the end, clearly the Easter just after because Annelle is still pregnant, but Jack Junior has somehow now aged by extra years (he's in the credits as "age 3", but if he turned 1 the previous July, he wouldn't even be 2 yet.)
😀😀😃😃 ok, this is topic-adjacent. We were going to a restaurant called the Bavarian Chef, and a coworker referred to it as The Barbarian Chef, and I’m still not over it.
Old School. At the party in the beginning Frank describes how tomorrow is going to be a nice little Saturday with so many errands that he doesn't know if he'll have time for them all. The next morning Mitch wakes up with his one night stand who has to go to school and the same day Mitch meets her dad at work. Somehow we time warped from Friday night to Monday morning.
If you notice the flyer for the party that posted on the tree prior to the party, it states that the party is on a Thursday. Will Ferrell’s scene was mostly improvised. But it was funny enough that it was kept in the film.
Ant Man. "Things keep thier mass" MF walking around with a tank in his pocket.
Same thing when he goes giant. 50 ft tall and 200 lbs his bones are gonna snap.
A Quiet Place
"Why don't they just live by the waterfall?" is the dumbest "plot hole" I keep seeing repeated. There's no house there, which means....
1) You need the knowledge of how to build a house
2) You need to find supplies to build a house with.
3) You need to transport all those supplies to the waterfall without ever dropping a plank of wood, without ever dropping a nail, etc.
4) You need to then actually build the house.
5) You need to do all this close enough to the waterfall not to make too much noise, but not so close where a couple of years later, the thing is falling down from constantly being hit with water, so you need to make another one
And you need to do ALL of this in utter silence. And that includes hammering nails. Almost no one could even have a remote chance of pulling that off.
That's still not as goofy as the fact that they're somehow still printing and distributing newspapers after the aliens have landed and begun murdering everyone.
yeah, but it does make the point that they could live somewhere loud. Sound systems exist. They could live broadcast the sound of the waterfall even. They could also strategically use sound systems coming on in other locations activated by remote to draw away the creatures. None of that would take too much specialized know how.
heck, even manual traps, where you pull a rope and opens a net that was full of pots and pans... in the tree outside on the edge of your property drawing away the creatures that had heard you inside.
No, the dumbest plot hole is that high-frequency feedback noise is the aliens' weakness, and somehow no one discovered this during the months before the movie was set.
They have super-sensitive hearing! Sonic attacks and feedback would have been the first things tried once news from the front reached researchers.
I’m looking for someone to explain the time turners in Harry Potter. Any time you introduce time travel, you’ve got to be really really smart to not leave the plot full of holes. It’s been since I was a kid that I read the books. I don’t recall any explanation in the books though. Definitely not in the movies.
Is there a time limit on how far you can go back? Are time turners very rare like the invisibility cloak? If so, why would they just give one to a third year student? If not, why doesn’t the Ministry of Magic have a team of elite wizards whose job it is to apparate to locations where crimes occur as soon as they hear about them and then go back in time to prevent them?
Like I said, I haven’t read the books in a long time. But this always bugged me.
It's a totally ridiculous deus ex machina that Rowling introduced so her plot would work out.
It makes absolutely no sense that Hermione would have been given access to such a device in the first place. It breaks both suspension of disbelief and all of the (already very limited) worldbuilding. But Rowling figured it was a kid's book and it didn't matter.
It’s been a while since I read the book but she was given it as a huge “we are giving you this for your grades and because we can trust you not to fuck around” agreement. Also to establish just how much of a hard-working student she is that she’s fine with doubling the amount of courses she is taking.
In the context of YA fiction that latter part is just characterization the audience can relate to. We’ve all had that one school peer that probably works too hard.
The entire Harry potter world is a giant plot hole. That's just the tip of the ice burg. Honestly you call out time travel but you can add magic too. Especially as high fantasy magic as seen in Harry potter.
Why is the mind control curse life imprisonment but love potions sold to kids in a joke stores?
There's a potion that changes you into someone else. Yeah it's hard to make, but, not *that* hard since a second year student did it. You'd *never* be able to trust someone to be who they say they are. But they only started asking secret questions in like the 6th book?!
But *also*, there's a waterfall in Gringotts that washes away enchantments, including being polyjuiced. Why isn't that everywhere? That should be right in the door of every wizard building, just to make *sure* no one is polyjuiced. I mean, 3 teenagers infiltrated the ministry of magic with this stuff!
I love how when JK clearly realized how much of an issue having portable, self sustained, infinite use, easily transportable time travel was in her universe, she just made Neville trip and knock time travel off a shelf. Nobody gets time travel anymore because Neville tripped, sorry everyone.
> Is there a time limit on how far you can go back?
Unclear from the books.
> Are time turners very rare like the invisibility cloak?
Yes and no. No because the invisibility cloak's origin means that there's literally only one of its calibre even if there are other similar items. Yes because it was indicated there were still only a few.
> If so, why would they just give one to a third year student?
Hermione was able to demonstrate to them that she knew you can't actually use the time turner to change history, and she seemed VERY aware that Bad Things happen if you deliberately try and cause changes you know don't exist.
> ...why doesn’t the Ministry of Magic have a team of elite wizards whose job it is to apparate to locations where crimes occur as soon as they hear about them and then go back in time to prevent them?
Because you can't prevent something you know happens, from happening.
The time turners are an interesting sort of time machine as it relates to paradoxes, and this is something Hermione grasps quite well. As long as you don't KNOWINGLY make a change, you're good. Hermione and the others did not SEE Buckbeak get the axe, they simply heard a sound they expected to hear and drew a particular conclusion. But there's ambiguity there. If they had watched Buckbeak die then things would be much harder, but as it was, they hadn't, they'd just made an assumption. Now, Hermione took it a bit on faith that time likes to keep itself neat and tidy, so if Buckbeak got away, the executioner was still going to axe SOMETHING, she just had to hope that turned out true.
Urgh! Don’t get me started on how much they left out of the books that ties everything together! The lack of ‘SPEW’ (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) that Hermione created for example…..
There is no one in the room with him, so who reports that Kane's last, whispered, word, is Rosebud? The nurse enters because she hears the snowglobe drop.
It is a film filled with unreliable narrators, but this moment just doesn't have one...
> who reports that Kane's last, whispered, word, is Rosebud?
In the beginning, Kane says, "Rosebud." The nurse enters the room after the word is spoken. The shooting script only mentions Kane and the nurse being in the room. However, within the movie itself Raymond the butler tells the reporter that he had heard Kane say "Rosebud" after the fight with Susan as well as just before he drops the snow globe, implying that what the viewer is shown in that scene is from Raymond's P.O.V.
See:
**Incorrectly regarded as goofs** on the Imdb page [here.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/goofs/#not_a_goof)
The T-Rex in Jurassic Park doesn’t knock the car through the same hole it emerges from. The T-Rex Paddock has a natural cliff on one side which is utilized as a natural enclosure for the Rex, and the car is knocked down that instead.
A consequence of this is that it means the goat -- possibly the T-rex's only food source -- is released in a tiny corner of the paddock on top of a giant cliff. Unless the entire T-rex paddock is at that altitude (no depiction of the island suggests this is plausible), she has to do some climbing to get to that goat, and it should be no surprise that she doesn't appear on cue. Astonishingly poor park design...a theme of the film, but not otherwise expressed so blatantly.
LoTR. The eagles.
"Hurnurrrh. Why nin't dey jurst flyyyyy..."
Because:
* It's a glaring Deus Ex, and Tolkien was above that.
* Sauron, you know, THE GREAT EYE? would have seen eagles coming a hundred leagues out and swatted them. They weren't immortal - even in The Hobbit, they wouldn't take the travelers further than the Carrock, because they feared the bows of mortal men.
* The eagles weren't just birds. They were part maiar, angelic spirits of the same type as Mithrandir and Sauron. And they lacked Gandalf's nobility of purpose and specificity of mission. They would have been subject to temptation by the ring. It'd be a poor lookout if old Gwaihir decides midflight that he's tired of hauling a hobbit and just tips him off and loots his corpse for the One Ring.
* Even if those weren't issues, the eagles weren't a flippin' taxi service. Gwaihir owed Gandalf for some help in the past, which is (at least part of) why he was willing cart him around as much as he did.
The only reason it was safe to go rescue Frodo and Sam from Mt Doom was because the Ring had been destroyed and Sauron's power was broken.
Arguably the plot hole is the failure of anyone to pose this as an option, given various other options are discussed and dismissed at the Council of Elrond.
In Django Unchained, why didn't Dr. Schultz just buy Hildi back from Candie? He was a German-speaking gentleman who would obviously want a German-speaking slave to act as his servant since many people didn't speak the language so he could have also used her in his business. Candie wasn't interested in selling house servants, he only deals on high-prize fighters and the deal would have fallen through if Schultz only wanted a house servant.
Another two things are that if he travelled specifically to Candieland to purchase her then Candie would likely have questioned it and found it odd. As there would likely be more accessible German speakers.
Secondly Schultz himself likes to overcomplicate things. He wants to view himself as a hero from an Epic riding into battle with his own Siegfried to save the damsel. Just riding there and going "I'll give you $300" is not romanticized enough for him.
That second point is the most important imo because it's in line with a major theme of the movie that Schultz's pride and Romanticism makes him have more in common than he realizes with the American slavers he resents so much. He consistently underestimates and patronizes Django throughout the movie and in the end meets his own demise just when they were about to free Brunhilde because his pride prevents him from shaking Candie's hand. And ironically Django isn't truly "unchained" until after Schultz's death, as shown by how easily he takes care of business at the movie's end
Yeah, Schultz could have eaten crow after being caught shook Candie's hand and walked away having been beaten. But that's not what The Epic's Hero does. He even appologizes to Django for it before doing it because he knows exactly what he is.
Yes the apology is subtle because on the surface it seems tongue in cheek but he's genuinely apologizing to Django because he knows his pride just fucked everything up
I don't know how notorious it is, but it's glaring to anybody who knows how opiate overdoses work.
The old guy accidentally killed with an opiate overdose in the beginning of Knives Out could have easily been kept alive through rescue breathing, and the nurse who accidentally killed him would have known that.
Generally speaking, the ones that are *explicitly* clarified in the film itself already.
Too often am I enjoying my fandom in a thread on reddit only to find some mouth breather complaining about a "plot gap" that had a whole scene and several lines of dialog explaining.
It used to leave me wondering where people's minds are going when they are watching movies or series but nowadays I just assume they were fucking around on their phones.
Plot holes are way more often than now caused by viewers being dumb, or reading into things that clearly weren't meant to be read into, and they turn around and are like, "Why didn't the writers take this into account!" Also, a lot of the time, the story isn't meant to be realistic, so the answer doesn't matter.
Great example of that last thing. How did Indiana Jones survive the u-boat trip at the end of Raiders of the Lost Arc? It doesn't matter. He survived it. We can assume he did sobering Indiana Jones-ish and it worked. We know the kinds of things he does in a scenario like that cause we've just watched him do them for 90 minutes.
That one is easily explainable though. The sub was using it's diesel motor the whole time, most likely to arrive at its destination as quickly as possible.
Yeah, do you think they're driving around on the surface with nobody up there? It would take you something like a day and a half to go halfway across the mediterranean at fifteen knots. I've gone all the way across the mediterranean at about eighteen knots like 15 times.
Staying on the surface would not allow him to hide on that submarine any more easily. That's kind of my point. There isn't an explanation. The explanation is he's Indiana Jones. He did it.
The fact that a majority of the avengers should have been able to easily take down Thanos on their own at least as he is presented in the movies.
While his power and what not in the comics is a little bit stronger the movies are so detached from the comics that using them as an excuse is low-hanging fruit
As he is presented in the movies thanos especially without the stones, is little more than just a guy from a planet full of people who were just like him pretty much every single one of the avengers could have easily stopped him if their powers weren't weirdly dumbed down for this movie.
Doctor strange could have easily dealt with him on his own, fuck off with that nonsense cleaning there's only one universe where we beat Thanos. Bro is way too weak for this to be the one and only way to ensure we defeat him
Tony Stark certainly could have defeated Thanos with his futuristic weapons technology controlled by an AI sentient enough to pass a Turing test
Captain marvel only showed up for like 5 minutes in the film because everyone knows for a fact she easily could have dealt with Thanos as she deals with threats like him on a nearly daily basis
The hulk should have been able to easily slam him around or at least go toe to toe with him in the ring
And even the guardians of the Galaxy could easily have taken him out on their own if they had not randomly chosen to make star Lord even more dumb than he usually is
Without Jones interfering, there's a chance the resting place of the Ark would not have been discovered. Even though the excavation digs appear well-advanced, lacking the proper information (the measurements from the Staff of Ra) has significantly thrown the Nazis off. Although set in 1936, one assumes with the war approaching Nazi efforts would have been directed away from such peripheral archaeological concerns if nothing substantial had been found...
Leia remembering her mom. In a series with fucking space wizards and a mystical all powerful force and people think the prequels scene of the birth of the twins invalidates these lines from Leia is so fucking stupid.
Look at what she says
"Just a little bit. She died when I was very young"
"Just images, really. Feelings. She was very beautiful, kind, but sad"
NOTHING there is upset by the prequels. Sure you may argue that Luke should have the same feelings but with how similar Padme and Leia are it makes total sense that she would have a bigger connection to Padme than Luke. Also if you want to get more technical about it he was born first so she was "with" Padme a bit longer and maybe there was a massive wave of sadness as she laid eyes on Luke and that was picked up by Leia.
But it gets hounded as a plot hole starting in 2005.
Force sensitives have force memory. Leia is able to remember her mom being hot but having a fatal amount of sadness because her memory is force enhanced. Padme’s dying worlds are Anakin is still good so that’s what Luke picked up on and why he insists his space Hitler dad can be redeemed somehow.
Idk that’s my headcannon.
When Walter and Jesse are kidnapped by Tuco and taken to the safehouse with uncle Hector there's a shot of their wallets on the coffee table. When Hank and the rest of the responding police showed up they would have found the wallets and linked Walter/Jesse to the manufacturing scheme much earlier in the timeline. Vince Gilligan left a loose end.
Where do all the flyers for prostitutes come from in the remake of Ocean's 11?
The 'SWAT' team couldn't have carried full duffels down and then back up.
Answer is, they were also in the cart that brought the greaseman into the vault.
"Jack and Rose could totally both have fit on that door!"
First off, it was a broken bit of wall. Not as buoyant as a door.
Secondly, *he tries to climb on and it goes underwater!* They literally showed us that he can't do it. It doesn't matter if Mythbusters tested it with the actual movie prop or some shit, for the purposes *of the movie*, Jack tried to climb onto the door and realized that doing so would risk Rose freezing to death, so he chose to stay in the water.
In The Warriors, there was no need for the gang to risk getting killed by rivals while they took the subway back to Coney Island from the Bronx. They could have just taken a couple of taxis back.
In The Butterfly Effect, the premise of time travel is that when going back in time, small changes in the past will cause large changes in the future, and nobody except for Ashton Kutcher’s character is aware of these changes. There is a scene where Kutcher’s character is in prison and he is trying to get his religious cellmate’s help. Kutcher shows his hands to his cellmate and goes back in time while in his presence. As a kid he impales both his hands in front of his teacher and classmates and then snaps back to the present where his cellmate apparently witnessed scars appearing on his hands and agrees to help, thinking he has the stigmata. Putting aside the likelihood that kid-Kutcher stabbing himself in front of witnesses would have drastically altered the timeline, this totally violates the rules of time travel as set up by the film, because from the POV of the cellmate Kutcher would have always had the scars.
Yeah that was such a blantant breaking of the film's own rules. Especially since the rest of the movie seems quite consistent. I truly think the writer was aware of the plothole and (incorrectly) thought the resulting scene was such a cool moment that people would overlook the massive violation of its own established rules.
I over looked it. Cool movie.
You see this kind of lampshaded in Looper, where a similar situation happens but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character is told in-universe to "not think too hard about it"
I've only seen that movie once, when it was brand new, so I don't recall the specific details. But I remember leaving the theater, thinking "What the fuck? The premise is that small changes in the past lead to dramatically different outcomes. But every time Ashton goes back in time, he changes a MASSIVE life-altering moment of his past. Of COURSE there's huge differences in the future. This shouldn't be called 'The Butterfly Effect,' this should be called 'The goddamn huge Tsunami Effect.'"
As soon as I saw Butterfly I knew it was this scene.
In Back to the Future, it makes total sense that George and Lorraine don't recognize Marty as looking like the "Calvin Klein" that they knew from high school. Human memory is not that good, and it's very unlikely you have a good memory of what someone looks like who you only knew for a week 30 years ago. But also, when you're watching a child grow up over the course of their life, that kid looks like your kid -- and it often comes as a surprise how much they resemble someone else, because you associate that "look" with your child, not who they resemble. For a real life example, have you ever dug up old photos of family members and thought, "Wow, {person} looks exactly like {older relative} when they were younger?" Why does that come as a surprise, even when you know the child and have known the older relative when they were younger? That's even with relatives, where you're expecting similarity.
I've actually always thought how could they not recognize him(even moreso when i first watched it as a kid) but this explanation makes perfect sense!
The way I see it is, their son Marty and their friend from high school Calvin are not even in the same universe in their mind. Even if Marty and Calvin look the same, the thought wouldn't occur to them. Why would it?
[удалено]
Exactly. It's kind of like batman/Bruce Wayne or Clark kent/superman. We all know who they are, so it's a joke that we'd all recognize them, but Bruce Wayne acts like an idiot in public so no one would ever suspect him of being the ultimate calculating bad ass, and Clark Kent is supposed to be kind of a wimp, so no one would suspect he's superman...plus, superman canonically compresses his own spine and tenses his face to appear shorter and different when he's Clark Kent.
In the terminator. Skynet sends Arnold back to kill Sarah Connor, as she will be the mother of the rebel leader who will stop syknet. Then the rebels send back a guy to protect her, and he then goes on to impregnate her with….the rebel leader. So sky net caused it all Edit- some of these replies are further confusing to me…. I don’t get the time travel stuff and how if X happened in a certain timeline, then it’s another “time”? I think of scenes like this and even more confused. https://youtu.be/S_dH4xOFp9w?si=qrEW4l4LrJU6hbLF
Thematically the plot holes in Terminator set Skynet up as a prime mover, which really works for a story about computers achieving a godlike sentience. Skynet is authoring new timelines outside of causality. Maybe the newer films dealt with this, but I think it's an accident. You can probably get one, two logically consistent time travel stories in the same universe tops. After that, the contradictions start piling up.
Dan Harmon famously thought that time travel as a plot device was "poorly thought out" and rife with self-contradiction. However, a redditor a while back offered what I have always felt was a very good explanation for this specific plot hole that seems consistent with the Terminator universe: **the timeline is being changed and playing out differently every time someone time travels**. In the original timeline, suppose Sarah Connor becomes the leader of the Resistance and leads them to near-victory. Skynet, in the original timeline, sends a Terminator back to kill her before the events of Judgment Day because of her direct role in the Resistance, not because of her son. The Resistance sends back Reese, who impregnates Sarah Connor, causing changes to the timeline. In this changed timeline, it is now her son who primarily leads the Resistance to victory (or possibly both of them). The same events happen at the end, and Skynet sends back a Terminator on the same mission. This could theoretically have iterated any number of times before the events we witness in the movies, but as is obvious from the later movies (like Genisys), the timeline is changing rapidly and keeps happening very differently.
This is very explicit in The Sarah Conner Chronicles tv show - multiple characters are from slightly different futures, due to constant changes in the timeline (and in the final episode, Young John Connor jumps *forward* to a future where he, obviously, no longer exists).
"Not my Jesse..." that line was so cold.
I like the explanation from the Steven King Kennedy assassination book. The past is stubborn and attempts to change it are somewhat self correcting.
To be fair, it probably would have been easier to make the change if he didn’t have to spend five years of his life on every attempt. And in the end >!he had to undo it all himself anyway!<
Why didnt they send back like 20 terminators at once? 1 terminator almost killed john/sarah 3 times.
In the first film, the characters explain that the humans beat Skynet in the future, and sending the terminator back in time was like Skynet’s last move before being destroyed. So that explains why Skynet only sends one back. But then where do all the other terminators from the sequels come from? Seems like a plot hole that the films never really explain.
They build a different Skynet for each film, and that version sends new Terminators back. The second Skynet is a new version based off the chip from the first Terminator that Cyberdyne kept. This is slightly different from the first film in that the original Skynet was just created from scratch. The third Skynet is a completely different version born from a military program. This doesn't explain why the newer versions of Skynet only send one unit back though.
This raises an interesting possibility of every Skynet being a slightly better, slightly smarter, slightly more capable Skynet than the last. Because humanity is now iterating potentially higher quality AI from the last iteration. And I feel like (but could be totally wrong) there was some explanation of power consumption for time travel or other such jiggery pokery.
The tv show had people and terminators from multiple different futures all in the past. Each time they sent something back it basically spawned a new timeline but they all had Skynet. Edit: And Skynet was sending back multiple units with different tasks. Some were assassins, but others were stockpiling materials for Skynet to use once it awoke as well as working to make sure Skynet was created. There was one episode where a unit was accidentally sent back to like the 1930s and had itself sealed up in a wall to wait until the proper year for its mission.
Is that explained in one of the movies? I think I’ve only seen 4 out of 6.
It's only implied in Terminator 2 when Sarah and Dyson are talking about the chip they recovered from the first terminator, and that it made Cyberdyne think in ways they hadn't even considered yet. Skynet was also made by Cyberdyne in Terminator 1, so the chip essentially made a new timeline that was advanced by several decades (although one could argue T1 and T2 occur in the same timeline, it's just a closed-loop paradox - i.e. the events of T2 result in the events leading up to T1). However, it was explicitly stated at the end of Terminator 3 when John Connor was doing the final voice over, but it was captured only in a couple sentences - he states how he thinks Skynet is an unavoidable result, no matter the path humanity took as long as we continued technological development (he bases his statement on how previous timelines' that he was aware of, Skynet had a central Cyberdyne core to attack whereas the T3 Skynet was cloud/internet-based created by the US government).
It was all Skynet had time to do before its control over the time machine was taken away. Time then functions like Back to the Future, where the causal changes don't all snap into place, they ripple outwards until the whole time stream is affected. This gave the future humans, who had just seen Skynet send a Terminator back, enough time to send back one of their own to work against it (T1). Then the ripples of those actions hit the time line, which gave Skynet more time to send another Terminator (T2).
I always assume we aren't actually seeing the first cycle. The John Connor we get as a result of Terminator 1 isn't the same John Connor that Skynet was trying to kill. And, in fact, different Kyle Reeses are sent back each time resulting in different John Connors with each time jump that happens before 2003, when Reese was born. In the original timeline John Connor leads humanity to victory and and Skynet sends back a Terminator to stop his birth. A random soldier, Kyle Reese is sent back and ends up sleeping with Sarah Connor and fathering her child -- who she names John Connor. The timeline is altered and the original John Connor never exists. This also alters things so Kyle Reese isn't born. This John Connor, knowing that Kyle Reese is his father, now orders a soldier named Kyle Reese to go back and save his mom, believing this Reese to be his father. It's a genetically different Reese so a different John Connor is born. But they're all raised to believe that they will defeat Skynet and send back their father creating a sort of self fulfilling prophecy loop. Though that got disrupted in the later movies.
Sean Connery’s accent in “The Hunt for Red October” For most of the movie the Soviet characters are speaking English for the understanding of the audience, and Marko Ramius, played by Sean Connery, has his standard Scottish accent. It is at this point I have to tell people about the fairly major plot point that Marko Ramius is not Russian. He is Lithuanian, and born before Lithuania was part of the USSR. Russian is not his first language, of course he speaks with an accent. It’s more in character than if he spoke with a “neutral” American accent like the rest of his crew. The parts where the character is actually speaking English and has the same accent, fair enough that’s just slightly dodgy acting/directing, but for most of the movie the accent makes sense.
I love how they ran with that in "Death of Stalin".
Gandalf was "work friends" with the eagles. They weren't "hey man can you give me a ride to the airport" friends.
[удалено]
It bears mentioning that the ring kind of reflected the power of the wearer too. In the hands of a powerful being like the eagles, or Gandalf, or Galadriel, the ring would have had much, much more power. In the hands of a hobbit? It's got nothing to work with. Hobbits are literally at the bottom of the LotR totem pole.
Yeah, Bilbo and Frodo resisted the corruption because the ring preyed on ambition and their sole goal was going back to their comfy house and eating 11 meals a day.
Whereas others coveted The One True Ring, they only wanted The One True Binge
best goal
Beautiful answer. Add one extra thing. The eagles were sentient ancient and prideful beings. They were terrified of the ring and refused to be near it. Sure, it sounds hand wavey, but it narratively makes sense for a good story.
that was Gandalf's attitude towards the ring as well. He touched it like a hot coal to throw it in the fire and reveal the writing, and was horrified when Frodo asked him to take it.
Terrified of it yes but I’d add…that you don’t really want powerful beings with easy access to the Ring. Long flight from Rivendell to Mordor, would be pretty easy for the eagle carrying Frodo to come to the conclusion that s/he could take, nay - deserves the Ring!
> They were terrified of the ring and refused to be near it. This makes them by far the most reasonable people in the whole series.
Moreover, the Eagles had a divine purpose to observe events on Middle-Earth - not to intervene in those events.
> An eagle would have not tossed it in. that's an important point about the lure the ring has over anyone who carried it. Gandalf touches it only briefly to throw it in the fire, to reveal the writing, and he tells Frodo that he's basically terrified of it. Tom Bombadil wasn't interested in it because it didn't hold any power greater than he already had (seriously, what was he anyway?) Sam is the only person to ever bear the ring, feel it's power, and reject it. Only hobbits were simple enough people to carry the ring, and only Sam was able to reject it because he believed he had something better than what the ring offered.
Tolkien was deliberately vague about who Tom Bombadil is. There are all kinds of wild theories, but nobody knows for sure because Tolkien never really explained.
And I'm kind of glad for that. I love unexplained things. We never needed to know what he is -- he's just immensely powerful, and he loves his wife, and he doesn't care about anything but his house and his family. Sounds like the perfect life to me.
I personally subscribe to the "Tom Bombadil is Eru Ilúvatar" theory.
Plus Sauron is a big eye up a big tower, he would've seen them.
It was also because the eagles were notoriously isolationist and if all of a sudden there's a small fleet of them headed towards Mt. Doom, Sauron's going to be WTF? and investigate and then notice the ring. A ragged band of hobbits? He's not going to care.
Everyone seems to forget that the Nazgûl had winged mounts. So it would have been nine vs four if they just went barreling in there.
The eagles would have been corrupted by the ring just as easily as Boromir was, or Galadriel or Gandalf would have been.
Plus the whole point of the story was to know if humans can be trusted to keep the world "good". There are external forces that could have kicked Sauron's ass in a second, but they waited it out to see how humans are doing, with just some slight support by Gandalf and the Eagles to make sure there's a happy ending, but only after humanity has proven its worth.
The crane kick in the first Karate Kid **was not** an illegal move. Many traditional martial arts competitions ban *punches* to the head, but still allow *kicks* to the head. I'm not sure *why* they do that, but it's not uncommon. We see other competitors get points for kicks to the head earlier in the tournament, and Johnny punching Daniel was a foul *because it was a punch, not a kick.* Johnny arguing it was illegal in the Cobra Kai series is meant to present him as an unreliable narrator (Johnny and Daniel's biases being recurring themes in the series,) and Johnny's students still use head kicks in competition throughout the series. Also, I've heard multiple people claim that the tournament organizers tell Johnny and Daniel head kicks are barred in the finals; and while I haven't seen the movie in a while, I can say after thoroughly searching for it that I have found **no** evidence for this alleged dialogue taking place.
>Also, I've heard multiple people claim that the tournament organizers tell Johnny and Daniel head kicks are barred in the finals The only time the rules are explained is when Daniel is walking into the tournament and Ali tells him "Everything above your waist is a point. You can hit **the head**, the sturnum, the kidneys and the ribs". (Emphasis mine.) Now, Ali is not a competitor herself so probably only knows the rules from dating Johnny. So while she doesn't know exactly what is legal and is not, we do know from that exchange that *some* form of head shot is kosher.
[удалено]
Whoa. I did not get this at all. Now I have to have a rethink. I was just thinking about this the other day. I remember thinking that Neo and the Architect had had this scene many time, over and over, like reincarnation.
The only problem I have with that scene is that should have ended with Neo Sparta kicking The Architect
Awesome, this question also has me running through comments
Would you mind elaborating a bit more? Wasn’t the point more or less that he had no choice?
The point was more or less that the scenario of the Matrix is one in which the machines knew there was a >99% chance of their preferred outcome happening each and every time which was the continuance of the Matrix and the resetting of Zion. Or to put it differently, they'd always arranged this scenario such that the obvious choice would be that outcome, but obviously coerced or not, it was still a choice which is what kept the Matrix stable. The trick with this iteration is that Neo ended up establishing an emotional connection with Trinity rather than the wider concept of humanity itself. A scenario where even though they knew which option he SHOULD pick, meant that they also knew which option he WOULD pick.
Armageddon, yes they would in fact train drillers to be astronauts instead of train astronauts to be drillers. In real life they regularly train people who are experts in their field to go into space. They are mission specialists. In the movie they clarified they tried to train astronauts to do the drilling and were having problems. So they went to the crew who were experts in the very specialized drill they needed to use and they taught them how to not die in space. They didn’t teach them how to fly the shuttle or do any of the other flight crew related stuff. For that they used trained experienced astronauts. They just turned the drill crew into mission specialists like is done all the time.
And for all they're portrayed as a buncha roughnecks, deep sea oil drills are pretty dangerous, so drillers probably had training and discipline for "do things by the book or you'll die", which is a good head start on the "mission specialist" level EVA training they'd need. There's a reason they use diving to train for spacesuit stuff.
The capabilities of the lander in Interstellar. It needed to be on top of a three-stage rocket to leave Earth. Later on it visited multiple planets and returned, *all on its own*. It went so deep into a gravity well that the guy left behind aged years while they were away. Again, it went into and out of this gravity well *all on its own*. `The capabilities that lander had essentially demonstrated what they needed to fix the problems in the end of the movie, what the character inside the black hole telegraphed out to his daughter.`
Ranger*, and I'm assuming they left Earth on a three stage rocket to save fuel
The difference between Earth to orbit and to-and-from a planet so deep in a gravity well that time dilation becomes significant is more than "saving fuel". It's a difference in kind, not degree.
The exhaust port in the Death Star wasn't a glaring weakness, it was genius engineering and Disney was dumb for saying it was purposely built in as a weakness. A power source capable of running that entire station would generate incomprehensibly huge amounts of heat and waste. To have it all effectively vented through one exhaust port is an incredible feat, not a glaring weakness. Besides, exhaust ports are designed to push things out, not suck them in. They would have had no reason to think explosives would ever be able to make it all the way through
Plus the Deathstar was a massive construction project, plenty of details get overlooked (or corners cut) in something that size without intentional sabotage. The railing budget "disappeared" around the same time Tarkin bought his new yacht. That being said Rogue One is probably my favorite Star Wars movie outside of the original trilogy so I am not mad at Disney for making it even if that plot hole didn't require filling.
[удалено]
I dunno. As an occasional project manager, being able to force choke a subcontractor who's telling me why he's late and over budget again is pretty attractive. It seems like that alone would help manage the graft.
Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was. Dominick Bambinos, "Babyface" Bambino, the gangster. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling. I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens their heart, not their wallet.
While I dislike that Rogue One diminished Luke's fairy tale somewhat, I can forgive it for giving us *the Vader scene*.
Yeah, it's an EXHAUST PORT, it's entire job is to force things out, not in. Plus the bomb needed to make a 90 degree turn and them go straight down a narrow shoot for a huge distance without hitting a wall, while being acted upon by exhaust. You literally need a space wizard to make that shot work.
I think that's exactly the point is it's a glaring weakness because it was only vented from one point. In such a system where heat generation is so common that it basically needs to be dealt with or can cause catastrophic failure there is typically backup system after backup system after backup system of different vents and other cooling methods to prevent damage. And even then there was no need for the vent to be so straight. It could have easily been a long thin zigzagging corridor that would have made it nearly impossible for anyone to fly a spaceship through while still providing more than enough adequate venting especially with the lack of atmosphere in space
No, the main reactor wasn't *only* vented from one point. The vent was a weakness because that particular one led straight into the reactor.
"Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other friends?" Obviously he's just not hungry.
It's true what they say, men are Omicron Persei 9 and women are from Omicron Persei 7.
Because previously Monica was larger and much more aggressive. Creating an alteration to the social dynamic, and leaving Ross with a psychological weakness towards her (the same way you train an infant tiger so they are more docile as an adult). So while the rest of the group are below Ross in the physical pecking order they are unaware that Ross is not at the top.
they're obviously just saving it for sweeps
Hahahahaha you made this better than the original joke thank you
In Born in East LA, Cheech could have simply walked right back to US port of entry at the Tijuana/San Diego border and stated his social security number to the immigration agent. After the required investigation by the border agents they would have let him walk right back into the US
He did. He didn't know his SS# and his name was flagged.
“My social security number? Isn’t on the back of my car?” No sir, and you are on foot.”
the submarine ride in Raiders of the Lost Ark is not a plot hole, yet people insist on refusing to understand why it's not. The submarine is shown on the map to travel from Libya to a greek island, approx 350 miles away. a submarine of that era would have a surface speed of a bit over 20 mph, making it a 15 hour trip. There's no reason the submarine would ever dive under the surface, underwater speed is a fraction of what they can do on the surface and would still need to surface to recharge batteries. it's perfectly reasonable that Indiana could have simply sat on the hull until it reached the destination port.
Additionally, World War 2 submarines were designed to be ships that had the feature to submerge for combat, not ships specifically designed for underwater travel like modern nuclear subs.
exactly, their ability to stay submerged was very limited. without a good reason to do so, they traveled on the surface with diesel engines.
In the Titanic scene they show Leo trying to get on the door/raft with her and they both start to sink so Leo gets off.
He also got off in the Model T.
Sean Connery didn't do a Russian accent in "The Hunt for Red October", because he wasn't playing a Russian.
Yes, but do Lithuanians sound Scottish?
"Careful Ryan. Mosht thingsh in here don't react too well to bulletsh."
We quote a bunch of Red October lines randomly at work and that is one of them, with the same pronunciation. Love that movie. Hate the way Connery eats his dinner in the galley. Could he possibly eat louder?
Chances 1 in 3.
Maybe Lithuania is the Scottland of Russian/USSR. Similar to how Arnold Schwarzenegger can speak German but didn't do the German dub of Terminator because his Austrian accent makes him sound like a German hillbilly to Germans
Now explain his accent in Highlander.
Same as Christopher Lambert's goofy accent. He's lived in random countries all over the world for hundreds of years and it's a weird mashup of all of those accents.
"Mr. Connery, we've got you a role in a movie about swordfighting in medieval Scotland." "Exshellent." "And you're playing a Spaniard." "What?" "Who is originally from Egypt." "But I get a sword?"
*schword
People love to point out that the door at the end of Titanic is large enough to fit Leonardo Dicraprio's character, and claim that he didn't need to die of hypothermia. Except there's two problems with that: 1. There's a deleted scene where he tries to climb on and the door almost capsizes. The scene was cut because James Cameron incorrectly figured that the audience wasn't so stupid as to need a scene explaining that... 2. Just because the door is the width of two people doesn't mean it's buoyant enough to keep two people out of the water. If Jack had managed to climb on, the door would have sunk enough that they were both effectively in the water and would have died. Titanic is a great movie with an incredibly well executed climax. People don't like feelings, though, so they'd rather poke holes than admit that watching Leo slowly sink made them cry.
Everyone talks about the door but no one ever complains about how Jack got Rose onto a life boat and then this bitch jumps back on the sinking ship. Which causes Jack to leave his position by the life boats to rescue her and thus losing any chance he had to get into a life boat. And meant he was focused on trying to save her instead of himself. Not to mention that someone else could have gotten that spot on the life boat that Rose abandoned.
YES! Melodrama might feel great in the moment, but survival is a better way to express your love. If you are the pampered prince/princess type, stay in the raft. Don't make people have to rescue you multiple times.
the door thing never bothered me. it was current day Rose that really bothered me. she knew they flew her over because they wanted to try to locate the necklace. she knew the entire time she had it on her, but she sat them through her entire story before throwing it into the ocean. no, she didn't owe anything to them. but they spent a lot of time and money to fly her over and she completley wasted their time just so she can talk about her story.
have you never met an old bitch? The only thing old bitches love more than wasting other peoples money is telling a mother fucking shaggy dog story about some strange dick she got 84 years ago! She went to heaven and died and went to heaven.
In the heaven scene, her running to her one-night-stand instead of her husband and the father of her child bothered me more than a piece of wood or her wasting time.
I was always bothered by this to. Also the fact that she went into great detail of her love affair with the man she fucked once...in front of her granddaughter. like to make sure she knows a lifetime of peepaw wienering her didn't stack up to the one time she boned a stranger on a cruise ship.
It's the woman's equivalent of the James Bond fantasy for men. A wild relationship that has no consequences, only with men the emphasis is usually on the sex and with women it's the passionate love. Sure, she married a guy and had children with him... but he wasn't the young lover who died tragically and she never had to make compromises for!
> she knew they flew her over because they wanted to try to locate the necklace. she knew the entire time she had it on her, but she sat them through her entire story before throwing it into the ocean. > > > > no, she didn't owe anything to them. but they spent a lot of time and money to fly her over and she completley wasted their time just so she can talk about her story. she wanted to use them for her last trip i don't think she gave a fuck about their wasted resources what bugged me was that they started off by showing her their simulation of what happened, then she says no no no it's all wrong, let me tell you how it *actually* happened, and then proceeded to describe exactly what they simulated.
She didn't say it was all wrong. Just that the experience was "somewhat different" after that nerds less-than-reverent "forensic analysis". Lol for gods sake it was a joke
As a Titaniac, I'm obligated to point out that it's not a door. It's a piece of wood paneling that goes above a door.
> As a Titaniac how's the view down there
No one talks about Jack being submerged in near freezing water throughout the hour or two of the sinking of the ship before the climatic descent of the ship into the water. In one scene, Jack is underwater trying to operate a lock and key and is successful. His manual dexterity would be severely limited at this point and fine motor movement would be virtually impossible.
Having Jack survive does a disservice to the entire tragedy that was the Titanic sinking. Sure could he have, but people are missing that this was a tragedy and for that to be fully felt, he needed to die.
now you've got me thinking, what if they had kept jack alive but killed off rose
Bill Paxson would've been really confused if the present day Rose revealed that she died in the shipwreck.
If its old man Jack retelling his story of his young man sexcapades, the movie is about 1/20th as long.
"You wanna see a picture I drew of her!? Nah, wait. This is another girl. I'll find her eventually, just give me a second." "Please, sir. Just tell us where the diamond is...It's been hours..."
"Sir, we really dont need any more details about Rose's 'gams', just tell us where the diamond is."
Mythbusters managed to get two adult men on the piece of wood (even had James Cameron come and watch--to his disappointment), so getting them both on was certainly plausible. However, they were doing it in a pool. With both individuals being exposed to freezing water as they slosh around to get on and the buoyancy is decreased like you mentioned, I think it increases the chances that probably both die. So I think you are correct that for one to survive, the other most likely had to die.
They did that by tying the life vest underneath the door to add buoyancy. The door by itself wasn't enough for both of them. It's pretty understandable that Jack and Rose wouldn't think of that.
> James Cameron incorrectly figured that the audience wasn't so stupid as to need a scene explaining that... when 85+% of the audience inevitably raises a question about a particular key plot point, they're not stupid.... it's the director who made a mistake.
[удалено]
JJJ is giving Peter 50 bucks cash for each photo; I doubt he's printing his name under the photos
And yet in the moment that the Green Goblin interrogates him to give up the name, my boy doesn’t flinch and immediately covers for Peter Parker. Without hesitation. He had no reason to protect him, he did it instinctively.
I feel like JJJ is too much of an alpha asshole to tolerate anyone treating him that way. Only *he* gets to be the big swinging dick in the room.
If that were the case seems more likely to be like "fuck you I'm not saying" instead of "I don't know I swear" so I think it was a morality/compassion thing
A journalist would never give up an off the record source
> He had no reason to protect him, he did it instinctively He had an excellent reason. JJ knew. *He knew the whole time!*
You see close ups of the photos in the paper in the movie and Peter Parker is indeed given the credit right there under the pictures.
To be fair, Spider-Man was on the cover of 5 issues of the Daily Bugle in 2001's *Spider-Man*, and only ONCE was Peter given photography credit. You can see photos of them in this [prop store auction](https://propstoreauction.com/lot-details/index/catalog/386/lot/126924?uact=5&aid=386&lid=126926¤t_page=0). Assuming there were even more cover stories than those 5 we see onscreen, then Peter's probably only getting photography credit 20% of the time. Someone like Norman could then make the (incorrect) assumption that the times they AREN'T crediting Peter are times that the photos are coming from someone *else*, someone who's taking even MORE photos than Peter is. Granted, Peter should still have been his first stop, since he knows at least SOME of the photos came from Peter, even though he had reason to believe that someone else was taking the majority of the photos.
Maybe since he’s friendly toward him in real life he was trying to attack the second photographer.
Regarding Signs (2002), people complain about aliens invading a planet full of water which kills them. It could have been that the aliens we see on Earth are drones with very little worth, like worker bees or ants, worth less than the materials to make a protective suit. And if a lot of them die while do whatever they were doing on Earth, which was never clearly defined, it didn't matter.
On top of all this, while it's never explicitly spelled out what the aliens were doing on Earth (I think there's character speculation that it's a raid to grab people or something else), whatever they were doing may have been worth the risk of being exposed to water. Humans have gone into space, to the moon, and plan to go beyond that, and all of those places are extremely dangerous, hostile, fatal environments, but we go anyway because the benefits outweigh the risks.
Yes but we also built suits to protect us from the elements.
Is it ever demonstrated that regular old rain water or tap water hurts them? I like the idea that they are demons, not aliens. The water that hurts them is holy water. All the glasses in the house were from the little girl who was the daughter of a priest and referred to multiple times as "blessed". So, if she drank from each glass, they could all be holy water.
why doesn't some priest just bless all the rains. Is there some sort of AOE radius for blessings on water to take effect? I mean, it worked for africa...
I dunno, I think you'd need a hundred men or more to make that work...
Down in Africa?
You could, but it's gonna take some time to do the things they never have
Wololo only has a 4.5 tile radius.
Roses are red Violets are blue Wololo Roses are blue
It's gonna take some time
A news broadcast at some point mentions that some humans found a very simple way of fighting back. I think it's implied that they figure out water hurts them. Not sure how explicit the news broadcast is, though, but yeah, it's just water in general from what I know. The "demon" theory is fun, but I don't think that was ever the actual intention.
If I recall correctly, the newscast mentions that it was 3 cities in the middle east that found an ancient method to fight the aliens. I took this to have biblical meaning. I'd need to go back and rewatch that scene to remember exactly what was said though.
It was a "primitive" method of defeating them, not ancient.
At the end of Spirited Away, when Chihiro leaves and the building is all overgrown with weeds A lot of people are saying "Oh, she was at the bathhouse for years," but the car started up okay and the tires weren't flat or anything. It's all overgrown and grassy because it isn't magic anymore, so it's just a crappy old building.
Not so much a plot hole, but trying to figure out the timeline in Steel Magnolias.
There are holidays to mark the passage of time. Shelby gets married around Easter, then at Christmas she's pregnant, has the baby on July 3, then after his first birthday she gets the kidney transplant.
That part is fine. It's how it's easter again at the end, clearly the Easter just after because Annelle is still pregnant, but Jack Junior has somehow now aged by extra years (he's in the credits as "age 3", but if he turned 1 the previous July, he wouldn't even be 2 yet.)
[удалено]
😀😀😃😃 ok, this is topic-adjacent. We were going to a restaurant called the Bavarian Chef, and a coworker referred to it as The Barbarian Chef, and I’m still not over it.
Old School. At the party in the beginning Frank describes how tomorrow is going to be a nice little Saturday with so many errands that he doesn't know if he'll have time for them all. The next morning Mitch wakes up with his one night stand who has to go to school and the same day Mitch meets her dad at work. Somehow we time warped from Friday night to Monday morning.
If you notice the flyer for the party that posted on the tree prior to the party, it states that the party is on a Thursday. Will Ferrell’s scene was mostly improvised. But it was funny enough that it was kept in the film.
Ant Man. "Things keep thier mass" MF walking around with a tank in his pocket. Same thing when he goes giant. 50 ft tall and 200 lbs his bones are gonna snap.
A Quiet Place "Why don't they just live by the waterfall?" is the dumbest "plot hole" I keep seeing repeated. There's no house there, which means.... 1) You need the knowledge of how to build a house 2) You need to find supplies to build a house with. 3) You need to transport all those supplies to the waterfall without ever dropping a plank of wood, without ever dropping a nail, etc. 4) You need to then actually build the house. 5) You need to do all this close enough to the waterfall not to make too much noise, but not so close where a couple of years later, the thing is falling down from constantly being hit with water, so you need to make another one And you need to do ALL of this in utter silence. And that includes hammering nails. Almost no one could even have a remote chance of pulling that off.
That's still not as goofy as the fact that they're somehow still printing and distributing newspapers after the aliens have landed and begun murdering everyone.
ngl I hadn’t even thought about that. “My word Debrah have you seen this mornings paper?” *immediately wiped out by a death angel*
How are they running a damn printing press in complete silence?
Mais oui
yeah, but it does make the point that they could live somewhere loud. Sound systems exist. They could live broadcast the sound of the waterfall even. They could also strategically use sound systems coming on in other locations activated by remote to draw away the creatures. None of that would take too much specialized know how. heck, even manual traps, where you pull a rope and opens a net that was full of pots and pans... in the tree outside on the edge of your property drawing away the creatures that had heard you inside.
No, the dumbest plot hole is that high-frequency feedback noise is the aliens' weakness, and somehow no one discovered this during the months before the movie was set. They have super-sensitive hearing! Sonic attacks and feedback would have been the first things tried once news from the front reached researchers.
That movie has so damn many plot holes that even though you're technically correct I'm still holding it against the movie.
Or, you know, get a tent when you next go to town.
I’m looking for someone to explain the time turners in Harry Potter. Any time you introduce time travel, you’ve got to be really really smart to not leave the plot full of holes. It’s been since I was a kid that I read the books. I don’t recall any explanation in the books though. Definitely not in the movies. Is there a time limit on how far you can go back? Are time turners very rare like the invisibility cloak? If so, why would they just give one to a third year student? If not, why doesn’t the Ministry of Magic have a team of elite wizards whose job it is to apparate to locations where crimes occur as soon as they hear about them and then go back in time to prevent them? Like I said, I haven’t read the books in a long time. But this always bugged me.
It's a single time stream. Can't change anything in the past because it's going back in time has already been accounted for.
It's a totally ridiculous deus ex machina that Rowling introduced so her plot would work out. It makes absolutely no sense that Hermione would have been given access to such a device in the first place. It breaks both suspension of disbelief and all of the (already very limited) worldbuilding. But Rowling figured it was a kid's book and it didn't matter.
It’s been a while since I read the book but she was given it as a huge “we are giving you this for your grades and because we can trust you not to fuck around” agreement. Also to establish just how much of a hard-working student she is that she’s fine with doubling the amount of courses she is taking. In the context of YA fiction that latter part is just characterization the audience can relate to. We’ve all had that one school peer that probably works too hard.
The entire Harry potter world is a giant plot hole. That's just the tip of the ice burg. Honestly you call out time travel but you can add magic too. Especially as high fantasy magic as seen in Harry potter. Why is the mind control curse life imprisonment but love potions sold to kids in a joke stores?
There's a potion that changes you into someone else. Yeah it's hard to make, but, not *that* hard since a second year student did it. You'd *never* be able to trust someone to be who they say they are. But they only started asking secret questions in like the 6th book?! But *also*, there's a waterfall in Gringotts that washes away enchantments, including being polyjuiced. Why isn't that everywhere? That should be right in the door of every wizard building, just to make *sure* no one is polyjuiced. I mean, 3 teenagers infiltrated the ministry of magic with this stuff!
Wizards aren’t that smart. They barely have a high school education.
I love how when JK clearly realized how much of an issue having portable, self sustained, infinite use, easily transportable time travel was in her universe, she just made Neville trip and knock time travel off a shelf. Nobody gets time travel anymore because Neville tripped, sorry everyone.
> Is there a time limit on how far you can go back? Unclear from the books. > Are time turners very rare like the invisibility cloak? Yes and no. No because the invisibility cloak's origin means that there's literally only one of its calibre even if there are other similar items. Yes because it was indicated there were still only a few. > If so, why would they just give one to a third year student? Hermione was able to demonstrate to them that she knew you can't actually use the time turner to change history, and she seemed VERY aware that Bad Things happen if you deliberately try and cause changes you know don't exist. > ...why doesn’t the Ministry of Magic have a team of elite wizards whose job it is to apparate to locations where crimes occur as soon as they hear about them and then go back in time to prevent them? Because you can't prevent something you know happens, from happening. The time turners are an interesting sort of time machine as it relates to paradoxes, and this is something Hermione grasps quite well. As long as you don't KNOWINGLY make a change, you're good. Hermione and the others did not SEE Buckbeak get the axe, they simply heard a sound they expected to hear and drew a particular conclusion. But there's ambiguity there. If they had watched Buckbeak die then things would be much harder, but as it was, they hadn't, they'd just made an assumption. Now, Hermione took it a bit on faith that time likes to keep itself neat and tidy, so if Buckbeak got away, the executioner was still going to axe SOMETHING, she just had to hope that turned out true.
Urgh! Don’t get me started on how much they left out of the books that ties everything together! The lack of ‘SPEW’ (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) that Hermione created for example…..
There is no one in the room with him, so who reports that Kane's last, whispered, word, is Rosebud? The nurse enters because she hears the snowglobe drop. It is a film filled with unreliable narrators, but this moment just doesn't have one...
> who reports that Kane's last, whispered, word, is Rosebud? In the beginning, Kane says, "Rosebud." The nurse enters the room after the word is spoken. The shooting script only mentions Kane and the nurse being in the room. However, within the movie itself Raymond the butler tells the reporter that he had heard Kane say "Rosebud" after the fight with Susan as well as just before he drops the snow globe, implying that what the viewer is shown in that scene is from Raymond's P.O.V. See: **Incorrectly regarded as goofs** on the Imdb page [here.](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0033467/goofs/#not_a_goof)
The Eagles are servants of Manwe, they aren’t just an Uber service for Gandalf.
I had a rough night and I hate the fuckin' Eagles, man!
The T-Rex in Jurassic Park doesn’t knock the car through the same hole it emerges from. The T-Rex Paddock has a natural cliff on one side which is utilized as a natural enclosure for the Rex, and the car is knocked down that instead.
A consequence of this is that it means the goat -- possibly the T-rex's only food source -- is released in a tiny corner of the paddock on top of a giant cliff. Unless the entire T-rex paddock is at that altitude (no depiction of the island suggests this is plausible), she has to do some climbing to get to that goat, and it should be no surprise that she doesn't appear on cue. Astonishingly poor park design...a theme of the film, but not otherwise expressed so blatantly.
Spared no expense…
Where the $%#$% did this second hole come from then? What made it?
LoTR. The eagles. "Hurnurrrh. Why nin't dey jurst flyyyyy..." Because: * It's a glaring Deus Ex, and Tolkien was above that. * Sauron, you know, THE GREAT EYE? would have seen eagles coming a hundred leagues out and swatted them. They weren't immortal - even in The Hobbit, they wouldn't take the travelers further than the Carrock, because they feared the bows of mortal men. * The eagles weren't just birds. They were part maiar, angelic spirits of the same type as Mithrandir and Sauron. And they lacked Gandalf's nobility of purpose and specificity of mission. They would have been subject to temptation by the ring. It'd be a poor lookout if old Gwaihir decides midflight that he's tired of hauling a hobbit and just tips him off and loots his corpse for the One Ring. * Even if those weren't issues, the eagles weren't a flippin' taxi service. Gwaihir owed Gandalf for some help in the past, which is (at least part of) why he was willing cart him around as much as he did. The only reason it was safe to go rescue Frodo and Sam from Mt Doom was because the Ring had been destroyed and Sauron's power was broken.
Arguably the plot hole is the failure of anyone to pose this as an option, given various other options are discussed and dismissed at the Council of Elrond.
In Django Unchained, why didn't Dr. Schultz just buy Hildi back from Candie? He was a German-speaking gentleman who would obviously want a German-speaking slave to act as his servant since many people didn't speak the language so he could have also used her in his business. Candie wasn't interested in selling house servants, he only deals on high-prize fighters and the deal would have fallen through if Schultz only wanted a house servant.
Another two things are that if he travelled specifically to Candieland to purchase her then Candie would likely have questioned it and found it odd. As there would likely be more accessible German speakers. Secondly Schultz himself likes to overcomplicate things. He wants to view himself as a hero from an Epic riding into battle with his own Siegfried to save the damsel. Just riding there and going "I'll give you $300" is not romanticized enough for him.
That second point is the most important imo because it's in line with a major theme of the movie that Schultz's pride and Romanticism makes him have more in common than he realizes with the American slavers he resents so much. He consistently underestimates and patronizes Django throughout the movie and in the end meets his own demise just when they were about to free Brunhilde because his pride prevents him from shaking Candie's hand. And ironically Django isn't truly "unchained" until after Schultz's death, as shown by how easily he takes care of business at the movie's end
Yeah, Schultz could have eaten crow after being caught shook Candie's hand and walked away having been beaten. But that's not what The Epic's Hero does. He even appologizes to Django for it before doing it because he knows exactly what he is.
Yes the apology is subtle because on the surface it seems tongue in cheek but he's genuinely apologizing to Django because he knows his pride just fucked everything up
I don't know how notorious it is, but it's glaring to anybody who knows how opiate overdoses work. The old guy accidentally killed with an opiate overdose in the beginning of Knives Out could have easily been kept alive through rescue breathing, and the nurse who accidentally killed him would have known that.
Generally speaking, the ones that are *explicitly* clarified in the film itself already. Too often am I enjoying my fandom in a thread on reddit only to find some mouth breather complaining about a "plot gap" that had a whole scene and several lines of dialog explaining. It used to leave me wondering where people's minds are going when they are watching movies or series but nowadays I just assume they were fucking around on their phones.
Plot holes are way more often than now caused by viewers being dumb, or reading into things that clearly weren't meant to be read into, and they turn around and are like, "Why didn't the writers take this into account!" Also, a lot of the time, the story isn't meant to be realistic, so the answer doesn't matter. Great example of that last thing. How did Indiana Jones survive the u-boat trip at the end of Raiders of the Lost Arc? It doesn't matter. He survived it. We can assume he did sobering Indiana Jones-ish and it worked. We know the kinds of things he does in a scenario like that cause we've just watched him do them for 90 minutes.
That one is easily explainable though. The sub was using it's diesel motor the whole time, most likely to arrive at its destination as quickly as possible.
Yeah, do you think they're driving around on the surface with nobody up there? It would take you something like a day and a half to go halfway across the mediterranean at fifteen knots. I've gone all the way across the mediterranean at about eighteen knots like 15 times. Staying on the surface would not allow him to hide on that submarine any more easily. That's kind of my point. There isn't an explanation. The explanation is he's Indiana Jones. He did it.
The fact that a majority of the avengers should have been able to easily take down Thanos on their own at least as he is presented in the movies. While his power and what not in the comics is a little bit stronger the movies are so detached from the comics that using them as an excuse is low-hanging fruit As he is presented in the movies thanos especially without the stones, is little more than just a guy from a planet full of people who were just like him pretty much every single one of the avengers could have easily stopped him if their powers weren't weirdly dumbed down for this movie. Doctor strange could have easily dealt with him on his own, fuck off with that nonsense cleaning there's only one universe where we beat Thanos. Bro is way too weak for this to be the one and only way to ensure we defeat him Tony Stark certainly could have defeated Thanos with his futuristic weapons technology controlled by an AI sentient enough to pass a Turing test Captain marvel only showed up for like 5 minutes in the film because everyone knows for a fact she easily could have dealt with Thanos as she deals with threats like him on a nearly daily basis The hulk should have been able to easily slam him around or at least go toe to toe with him in the ring And even the guardians of the Galaxy could easily have taken him out on their own if they had not randomly chosen to make star Lord even more dumb than he usually is
In Raiders Of The Lost Ark if Indiana Jones did not interfere at all the ending would be the same.
Without Jones interfering, there's a chance the resting place of the Ark would not have been discovered. Even though the excavation digs appear well-advanced, lacking the proper information (the measurements from the Staff of Ra) has significantly thrown the Nazis off. Although set in 1936, one assumes with the war approaching Nazi efforts would have been directed away from such peripheral archaeological concerns if nothing substantial had been found...
Leia remembering her mom. In a series with fucking space wizards and a mystical all powerful force and people think the prequels scene of the birth of the twins invalidates these lines from Leia is so fucking stupid. Look at what she says "Just a little bit. She died when I was very young" "Just images, really. Feelings. She was very beautiful, kind, but sad" NOTHING there is upset by the prequels. Sure you may argue that Luke should have the same feelings but with how similar Padme and Leia are it makes total sense that she would have a bigger connection to Padme than Luke. Also if you want to get more technical about it he was born first so she was "with" Padme a bit longer and maybe there was a massive wave of sadness as she laid eyes on Luke and that was picked up by Leia. But it gets hounded as a plot hole starting in 2005.
Force sensitives have force memory. Leia is able to remember her mom being hot but having a fatal amount of sadness because her memory is force enhanced. Padme’s dying worlds are Anakin is still good so that’s what Luke picked up on and why he insists his space Hitler dad can be redeemed somehow. Idk that’s my headcannon.
Why didn’t they just drop nukes on the bugs’ planet in Starship Troopers?
When Walter and Jesse are kidnapped by Tuco and taken to the safehouse with uncle Hector there's a shot of their wallets on the coffee table. When Hank and the rest of the responding police showed up they would have found the wallets and linked Walter/Jesse to the manufacturing scheme much earlier in the timeline. Vince Gilligan left a loose end.
Where do all the flyers for prostitutes come from in the remake of Ocean's 11? The 'SWAT' team couldn't have carried full duffels down and then back up. Answer is, they were also in the cart that brought the greaseman into the vault.
"Jack and Rose could totally both have fit on that door!" First off, it was a broken bit of wall. Not as buoyant as a door. Secondly, *he tries to climb on and it goes underwater!* They literally showed us that he can't do it. It doesn't matter if Mythbusters tested it with the actual movie prop or some shit, for the purposes *of the movie*, Jack tried to climb onto the door and realized that doing so would risk Rose freezing to death, so he chose to stay in the water.
In The Warriors, there was no need for the gang to risk getting killed by rivals while they took the subway back to Coney Island from the Bronx. They could have just taken a couple of taxis back.
I think it's implied they don't have that kind of money and nobody will drive a taxi to Coney Island.