PDA

View Full Version : Movies with stupidly large plotholes...


Pages : [1] 2

nikjohns
01-10-2001, 01:35 PM
I watched two movies today (days off rock!) and both of them featured amazing plotholes. These were not the everyday, minor "How did he get to the shops and back in the time she said that...", I was amazed they weren't noticed in production. Anyways.

1. The Tru(e?)man Show

- The show was billed as being 'the most expensive ever'
What if Carrey's character had died young? Massive loss of revenue.
What if someone breaks character and tells him (this did happen, but there were no precautions taken against it happening)
Does everyone live in character the whole time?
How do you afford to pay several hundred actors for working constantly?
Do people go off the island when they aren't on the show?
How do you explain the concept of the show to a child?

2. Enemy of the State

- Basically, Will Smith receives an object the Government are after. Instead of arresting him until he co-operates, they go to bizarre lengths to track him, in the hope he will lead them to what they want.
Why not just do things the easy way ("Because then there'd be no movie.") Well, the writers are being paid a lot to write the movie, so they need to do a good job.

Anyone got any more?

Crusoe
01-10-2001, 01:52 PM
I haven't seen Enemy of the State, but regarding The Truman Show:

1. They would probably have restarted with a new character. Besides, for that kind of investment I bet they had all kinds of medical care available to ensure he doesn't due of anything.

2. They did have precautions to prevent him being told. Only two people ever say anything; the actress who's unceremoniously dumped ASAP, and the intruder to the studio who gets chucked out pretty damn quick. Besides, all they'd need to do is sign up all of the actors on tight contracts and that's a disincentive in itself. Besides, after living that long without suspicion, why would he believe half of the actors?

3. Uh, it was a movie. There's no way of knowing. But why would they stay in character when not needed?

4. Because the show is enormously popular, and no doubt a vast hit with advertisers (remember the product placement scene?)

5. See 3.

6. Why would a child need to understand it? I guess it was made for an adult audience, really.

rjung
01-10-2001, 02:39 PM
I'd just like to comment that I thought the movie Deep Impact was one big gaping plot hole. The annoying part was watch all the human characters sidestep the solutions; by the end of the movie, I was rooting for the asteroid to wipe out the Planet of the Morons.

And in keeping with the OP, how about the fundamental plot hole behind Jurassic Park? "We're going to open a tropical theme park filled with cloned dinosaurs, and the only way to get here is by helicopter. Oh, and if there's a storm, we'll have to shut down and evacuate the whole park...!" With an islandful of people and helicopter-only access? I don't think so...

RiffRaff
01-10-2001, 02:47 PM
First off, I gotta disagree with you on the Truman show. I don't think any of the things you mention qualify as a plothole. Check it out:


- The show was billed as being 'the most expensive ever'
What if Carrey's character had died young? Massive loss of revenue.

The show didn't start out as the most expensive ever. Remember, they showed the beginnings of the show, with the single camera. Over time, with the addition of more equipment and, as you mention, the continued survival of the star, the Truman show BECAME the most expensive ever.


What if someone breaks character and tells him (this did happen,

Answered your own question here.

but there were no precautions taken against it happening)

No, but judging from the fact that someone did break character in the movie, it would seem that this is part of the plot.


Does everyone live in character the whole time?

Dunno. If they do, how does it make for a plothole? If they do not, how does it make for a plothole?


How do you afford to pay several hundred actors for working constantly?

Perhaps with the revenue generated by several hundred thousand people watching constantly...


Do people go off the island when they aren't on the show?

Dunno. If they do, how does it make for a plothole? If they do not, how does it make for a plothole?


How do you explain the concept of the show to a child?

Dunno. However, there are plenty of concepts that are tough to explain to a child. Many of them would make excellent movies, probably for the same reason that a child might find them confusing.


I'm right there with ya on Enemy of the State tho - I don't know what they were thinking.

-------

Here's a plothole that always bugged me. It's in the Matrix - I enjoyed the movie thoroughly, but this one part always nagged at me (If you ain't seen the movie yet, be warned that there be spoilers ahead).

Anyways, the idea is that the machines are using humans as batteries. They grow them in these pod thingies, keeping them unconscious but alive as a constant power source.

Ok, that's all fine and good. My problem is this... why do the machines go to the trouble of creating this whole virtual universe that each human, while unconscious is plugged into? What does it do for them? Fool the humans? They're unconscious already, what are they gonna do?

-------

Here's another issue that pops up in two sets of movies (probably more actually) - time travel, as seen in the Back To The Futures and the Terminators.

The basis of both of these is that someone travels back in time and does something to change events back in the present time. The problem is that the thing then never happened to cause the string of events that led up to them travelling back in time, so it should be safe to assume that in the updated present, they never travelled back to change events. I dunno if I'm saying this in a way that makes any sense to anyone, so let me give this example:

1) On day 1, I sell my car.
2) On day 5, I am so tired of walking, I travel back in time to undo the selling of my car.
3) Assuming I am successful, this means that I never sold my car.
4) So I never got tired of walking.
5) So I never went back in time.
6) So I never undid the selling of my car.
7) So I still got tired of walking, and on day 5, I went back in time to undo the selling of my car. (go to #3, repeat until eyes cross)

c_goat
01-10-2001, 03:05 PM
I don't really see the plothole in Enemy of the State:

The bad guy wanted what Will Smith had. Not the gov't. If the gov't got it, then the bad guy would be in jail rather quickly. The bad guy used his position in the gov't to track Will Smith with the gov't equipment. He could do so because he was the one in charge of that equipment and responsible for approving it's use. If he wanted to have Will Smith arrested, then he would have to get a warrant and then the police would get the tape and bad guy is in big trouble. He didn't send the police after him (if I remember correctly) just his cronies who were in cahoots with him. If he did eventually send the police, it was already after Will Smith was framed for a crime and/or they recovered the disk.

I haven't seen the movie in a while, but that's how I remember it.

smaft
01-10-2001, 03:15 PM
Riffraff-
That's the good old paradox of time travel. There is no answer and no real way to find out except by doing it.

Some analysis at http://homepage.mac.com/billtomlinson/newtt.html

As an aside, I've always liked the idea that this paradox also means you don't actually have to invent a time machine- once you do, hand yourself the keys:

Present You: Gee, I should invent a time machine.
CRACK!! [sound of timeline discontinuity]
Future You: Here you go!
Present You: Thanks, but how does it work?
Future You: Oh, here's the manual. See you in a few years!

Course, you'd then be gallavanting across the centuries while your future self is stuck in the present...

Max Torque
01-10-2001, 03:26 PM
Double Jeopardy. The entire premise of the movie, as stated in the title, is flawed. A crime doesn't consist just of the act, it also includes a circumstance. Otherwise, Joe Crackhead can be convicted of robbing the 7-11 at 123 Anywhere Street, do his time, and continue to rob the same store for the rest of his life untouched by the police. She wasn't convicted just of killing her husband, she was convicted of killing him "on date X on the boat with weapon Y". Legal dumbass writers....

LifeWillFall
01-10-2001, 03:28 PM
I don't think the alledged plot hole in the matrix really is one. While questioning Morpheous, Agent Smith says that at one point the human rejected the world created and began trying to wake up. My point is although they are unconcious it's only maintained that way because the human mind is occupied. I don't think they could keep people unconcious as a power source if there was nothing to keep us occupied. The bigger question that I think was addressed in another thread is why didn't they just use cows or some equally as unharmful creature. Who knows maybe this will all be explained in one of the sequals

RiffRaff
01-10-2001, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by smaft

As an aside, I've always liked the idea that this paradox also means you don't actually have to invent a time machine- once you do, hand yourself the keys:

Present You: Gee, I should invent a time machine.
CRACK!! [sound of timeline discontinuity]
Future You: Here you go!
Present You: Thanks, but how does it work?
Future You: Oh, here's the manual. See you in a few years!

Course, you'd then be gallavanting across the centuries while your future self is stuck in the present...

I had the misfortune of seeing Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey the other day (hehe, speaking of gaping plotholes...). They use this idea extensively to conjure up basically any damn thing they happen to need.

I also have a theory that I already tried this ploy. The future me came back to give me the keys, took one look at me, laughed and said "Ha! Not bloody likely", and headed off to the horse races.

I have another theory that the future me was headed straight back my way with full intent to hand over they keys. He decided to make a brief stop to experience the Summer of Love, passed out on someone's couch, and just hasn't woken up yet. It's only a matter of time... that little burnout should be showing up any minute now.

Swampwolf
01-10-2001, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by nikjohns

Do people go off the island when they aren't on the show?


There was an entire scene when Truman and his wife got off the island. And remember the ferry?

One classic movie with a plothole that shreds the movie to pieces: The Blues Brothers.

Premise. They have to get the band back together to raise $5,000 for back taxes for the orphanage.

But the orphanage is Catholic, and run by nuns. It would qualify (easily) for tax-exempt status.

But then, one of the greatest movies of all time wouldn't have been made.

Dignan
01-10-2001, 04:40 PM
OK, so we find out that some "bad" guys (although we don't know why they're bad) think this girl knows something "bad" about a golf course (we never find out what the bad golf course secret is), turns out she doesn't know. "Bad" guys go looking for her, they find her, one of Jim Carrey's personalities saves her.

We never find out what she's being chased for, why these guys are bad (I guess we're just supposed to know that since they want her for some unknown reason they're automatically bad, and because they have guns and look mean). In between this we are treated to three large black geniuses with filthy mouths (from years of watching Richard Pryor) and bathroom humor (dildo, chicken in the ass, others that I'm forgetting). I left this movie thinking, "OK, I'm guessing the Farrely brothers had a bunch of jokes, and couldn't really think of a plot, so they decided to get Jim Carrey and have the "jokes" come fast and furious, and hopefully no one will notice that they never find out what the hell is going on." Movie wasn't entirely bad, Anna Kournikova's movie debut, I believe :D.

jmullaney
01-10-2001, 04:47 PM
Red Dawn comes to mind. A few teenagers against the entire Russian military (which did manage to defeat the U.S. military lickety split). OK movie other than that.

Cisco
01-10-2001, 06:29 PM
I have to agree with LifeWillFall about the Matrix. The robots had to keep our minds occupied or our bodies would die. The thing that always fucked with me about the Matrix though was the phones. What the hell was up with the phones? The way the system worked it doesn't seem like you would need anything to get out.

bashere
01-10-2001, 07:00 PM
Max Torque, in the movie, the whole "double jeopardy" theory is told by a convict. It sounds like typical criminal logic. In the movie itself, it is pretty clear that everyone else thinks she'll go to jail again if she really kills her ex.

Kyberneticist
01-10-2001, 07:01 PM
Yes, it's bizaare, but it appears the matrix has this problem with union of mind and body. Your mind can actually wander around in the matrix, leaving your logon point, and be separated from the body.

Then you need to find a logoff point to get the mind out, or your body dies. But does your mind live on as a disembodied program or something? *shrugs*

The purpose of the Matrix has been discussed before. The most common solution is that since thermodynamic laws are obviously being violated, that the matrix is not merely recreational software for human batteries, it is the world the ai live in. They live off the human brain wetware. They have to keep the humans appeased to survive. This weakness of theirs is why they don't want the rebels to know about the true purpose of the Matrix.

kasuo
01-10-2001, 07:13 PM
Another one about Matrix.. you know how they had a first person who was able to manipulate and eventually escape the matrix. Well, from what I remember seeing, anyone being in the matrix for that long had atrophyed (sp?) muscles and poor organ development. So how did "the one" make it if there were no other humans around outside of the matrix?

tracer
01-10-2001, 07:51 PM
LifeWillFall wrote, re The Matrix:

The bigger question that I think was addressed in another thread is why didn't they just use cows or some equally as unharmful creature.
Even then, you would have to feed the cows. How are you going to grow crops to feed the cows (or the humans, for that matter) if you don't have any sunlight? Plants need sunlight to survive and grow.

I suppose they could grow the plants indoors with artificial lighting, and power these indoor lights with, say, coal-fired electric generators. But then you have to ask: Why not just use the coal-fired electric generators to power the Matrix?

Kyberneticist
01-10-2001, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by kasuo
Another one about Matrix.. you know how they had a first person who was able to manipulate and eventually escape the matrix. Well, from what I remember seeing, anyone being in the matrix for that long had atrophyed (sp?) muscles and poor organ development. So how did "the one" make it if there were no other humans around outside of the matrix?
I think what is meant there is that Zion was the city the humans were driven back to, and that the guy who escaped the matrix simply joined up with the other humans to found the Resistance.
This could be due to my misunderstanding of the movie, though.

ThisYearsGirl
01-10-2001, 08:15 PM
This is so dumb, but one thing about that terrible movie "Keeping the Faith bugged me. Or maybe I'm just missing something. When Ed Norton can't sleep, he calls Dharma, and you see her and Ben Stiller in bed, and they don't hear the answering machine. So Ed didn't call her cell phone (clearly, because she says on the message "Only three people know this number. . . " and a lot of people know her cell phone number). But then, the next morning, Dharma is leaving Ben's apartment! What the hell!? I was under the impression Ed called her house. Why would he call Ben's house, when he was unaware of his relationship with Dharma?

Max Torque
01-10-2001, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by bashere

Max Torque, in the movie, the whole "double jeopardy" theory is told by a convict. It sounds like typical criminal logic. In the movie itself, it is pretty clear that everyone else thinks she'll go to jail again if she really kills her ex.

I'd agree with you, were it not for that final scene (used extensively to promote the movie) where she confronts her husband at gunpoint and "law professor" Tommy Lee Jones agrees with her analysis of double jeopardy....

betenoir
01-10-2001, 09:16 PM
The thing that bother me about the Truman Show (it's kind of a plothole in that it's such a huge thing and is never adressed in any way- at any rate it made suspending my disbelief difficult) is that for the corporation to do what it did to Truman it would require the complete overturning the the Constitution/the basic concept of human freedom/the fundemental principles upon which this great nation is founded etc.,etc.* I mean you can't suspend the protection of the law for just one person (well if you did it would still require overturning the Constitution) so we're talking about a country where people are other people's property, where the rights of the owner over the ownee are absolute, including the right to kill him (Ok, Ed Harris didn't want to kill Truman but he obviously was willing to risk it, and apparently had the right to do so). And in the real world there cound not even have been a pretext that people were not property. What sort of Orwellian nightmare is he walking out into at the end?







* Ok I realize we had those princples, in theory, and slavery at the same time, but...I still think it would take a complete negation of those principles for us to go back now.

poohpah chalupa
01-10-2001, 09:26 PM
There was a film made a few years back starring Richard Gere, Edward Norton and Laura Linney about the murder of the Archbishop in Chicago. I believe it was called Primal Fear (?!?)
To make a long story short, it was a huge news story, made headlines nationwide. Norton was on trial, but there were skeptics who felt that this boy couldn't have committed the murder.
Any decent journalist could've sniffed out the truth about this guy. A little background search...BOOM! Case closed. Simple. Elementary.
Nobody in the film...none of the high-priced lawyers, no one in the media, it figured out. I wasted six dollars and two hours of my life on this crap.
It was a hit movie, so somebody out there must've seen it. Comments?

FEotU
01-10-2001, 09:29 PM
What about Armegeddon? When the shuttles docked with the Russian station to refuel, where did the fuel go? They had already jettisioned the external tanks, and space shuttles don't have large internal tanks.

Kyberneticist
01-10-2001, 09:54 PM
Don't know anything about the plot of that stupid movie (which I have yet to see) but perhaps the shuttle bay was retrofitted with a fuel area? Or was that being used for mining equipment or whatever?

Obvious Guy
01-10-2001, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by tracer

Even then, you would have to feed the cows. How are you going to grow crops to feed the cows (or the humans, for that matter) if you don't have any sunlight? Plants need sunlight to survive and grow.

Morpheus states that the dead are liquefied as food for the living.

Kyberneticist
01-10-2001, 10:50 PM
Which is the big thermodynamics plot. Again, covered before. :)

bedhog
01-10-2001, 10:51 PM
I can't for yhe life of me remember the name of the film, but it was a Scottish film starring Ewan McGregor. The basic premise was that 2 men and a woman share a house and get another roommate, who then dies of a heroin overdose (but with a suitcase full of cash in his possession). The three remaining roommates then go to outlandish lengths to dispose of the body so that they can keep the cash. It actually was a pretty good film, but I could never figure out why they just didn't hide the money, then call the cops or ambulance (or whoever) to dispose of the body properly.

El_Kabong
01-10-2001, 11:04 PM
You're thinking of Shallow Grave, 1994, Dir: Danny Boyle. Sorry, don't have a clever answer as to why they didn't just turn the body over to the authorities and hang on to the dosh.

Alessan
01-10-2001, 11:06 PM
Another one about Matrix.. you know how they had a first person who was able to manipulate and eventually escape the matrix. Well, from what I remember seeing, anyone being in the matrix for that long had atrophyed (sp?) muscles and poor organ development. So how did "the one" make it if there were no other humans around outside of the matrix?

There's a theory that the Oracle was actually a rogue A.I. I guess we'll have to wait for the sequels.
I can't for yhe life of me remember the name of the film, but it was a Scottish film starring Ewan McGregor. The basic premise was that 2 men and a woman share a house and get another roommate, who then dies of a heroin overdose (but with a suitcase full of cash in his possession). The three remaining roommates then go to outlandish lengths to dispose of the body so that they can keep the cash. It actually was a pretty good film, but I could never figure out why they just didn't hide the money, then call the cops or ambulance (or whoever) to dispose of the body properly.

Shallow Grave. Good flick.

I think they knew that the dead guys enemys would come sniffing around for the money, and wanted to remove any trace of the fact that he had ever stayed there.

silent_rob
01-11-2001, 12:09 AM
Okay, my friend & I worked at a video store and we grabbed a couple of screeners (several months before films are released to rent, vid stores get these to check out) one night to check out. The two movies were American History X and I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. Unfortunately, we watched AMX first. Unfortunately, because it is such an awsome movie and we then checked out the crapfest that is I Still Know...!
It has one of the biggest plotholes I have ever seen! Truthfully, most of the "plotholes" that have been brought up so far are just are more character traits and occurances that don't make sense. That's not a plothole, because characters in movies often do strange stuff for no reason. I would say that a real plothole is something that completely breaks down the logic of the film. Example: I Still Know....
SPOILERS
.
.
.
.
.
.
There is a character that buys a gun to go save what's-her-face (the star, I can't remember her name). Lots of killings and such happen before he gets there. Then he finally gets there and...WHOOPS, he forgot to get bullets. Now, that's not the plothole; it's stupid (why would anyone ever do that?) but it's not a plothole. However, the killer is again trying to kill someone at the end, when bam! He's shot, because they're in the same place where the gun was disposed of. Wait, but there's no bullets...oh, that doesn't matter, the killer's dead, hooray!
What??? Where did the bullet's come from? A plothole big enough to drive a truck through.

Sublight
01-11-2001, 01:40 AM
The one that always bugged me was in Die Hard 2, the one that supposedly takes place at Dulles airport.

Because they can't talk to the Dulles control tower, the planes all have to stay in a holding pattern until they run out of fuel and crash. Funny, I wasn't aware that Washington DC was so remote that the planes couldn't just land somewhere else.
They all circled Dulles for at least 2 hours. There are are at least a dozen suitable airports within a 2-hour radius of Washington, aren't there?

A minor one, compared to the first point, but still a plot hole: Part of Bruce Willis's plan involves leaving the underground tunnels through a manhole in the middle of a runway. Any manhole strong enough to withstand having a 747 roll over it would be far too heavy for Willis to lift.

--sublight.

Tzel
01-11-2001, 02:50 AM
More on the Matrix: I can't believe no one has nitpicked this one yet. The Matrix is a world that is completely controlled by the AI's, right? Well then, why don't they just create a 3 foot thick steel cube around the rebels when they're running around doing their actions? And why do the Agents give themselves humanoid bodies with all the same weaknesses as humans. If it can be beaten with a bullet to the head, it doesn't strike me as a very well designed body. They could just take the form of some giant indestructible death machine and just grind up the rebels or something. Or they could just use high powered explosives to kill the rebels. The agents wouldn't die, just the bodies they were using. Or they could just blow up the place the oracle lived in, killing her and all the potential "The Ones" as well. Of course the answer, as in so many cases, because there would be no movie. However, I'm willing to forgive these infractions in the case of the Matrix, because it's a good flick.

Cisco
01-11-2001, 06:16 AM
Any manhole strong enough to withstand having a 747 roll over it would be far too heavy for Willis to lift.



Ummmm, you haven't seen Unbreakable have you? Bruce Willis is strong.

Tapioca Dextrin
01-11-2001, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Sublight
The one that always bugged me was in Die Hard 2, the one that supposedly takes place at Dulles airport.


Not to mention (amongst about 25 other points) if the control tower wanted to contact the planes in the air, then why not use the radios of the planes on the ground?

dantheman
01-11-2001, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by Max Torque
I'd agree with you, were it not for that final scene (used extensively to promote the movie) where she confronts her husband at gunpoint and "law professor" Tommy Lee Jones agrees with her analysis of double jeopardy.... [/B]

I very much agree, Max Torque. From the moment I first heard about that movie, I was skeptical - till I saw the commercials for it, when I became incensed. Talk about altering a law to fit your own needs!

For this astute oberservation, I dub thee my personal God for the Day. Your duties include hurling lighting bolts at people who piss me off, turning yourself into a bull so you can copulate with maidens fair, and helping me with my tax returns! :D

Osip
01-11-2001, 07:47 AM
Not a pothole but something that irked me in the Matrix.
When trinity places the gun against the agents head she is standing to the side of him. She pulls the trigger, camera angle changes and the agent flies directly back as though he was shot from the front.

sorry as you were just had to let that out.

Osip

wring
01-11-2001, 07:56 AM
In Die Hard 2 there's a brief scene in the early part where the storm has hit, the other airports nearby have been officially closed, all planes on route have been re-routed, and they're stuck with the ones already in their airspace. It's thin (but not quite so thin as the layer in snow in Alpena MI at the time it was filmed, which is why you see splashes in the snow mobile scenes)

Originally posted by poohpah chalupa
There was a film made a few years back starring Richard Gere, Edward Norton and Laura Linney about the murder of the Archbishop in Chicago. I believe it was called Primal Fear (?!?)
To make a long story short, it was a huge news story, made headlines nationwide. Norton was on trial, but there were skeptics who felt that this boy couldn't have committed the murder.
Any decent journalist could've sniffed out the truth about this guy. A little background search...BOOM! Case closed. Simple. Elementary.
Nobody in the film...none of the high-priced lawyers, no one in the media, it figured out. I wasted six dollars and two hours of my life on this crap.
It was a hit movie, so somebody out there must've seen it. Comments?

I saw it, and after I'd read the book btw. Norton's character lived in a very very tiny town in KY before the big city, and even in the book, it took a lot of digging to get the truth about him. Gere knew he'd done the murder but felt he was insane (had two personalities and only one had done the killing). SPOILER ALERT>>.............


(it wasn't until the end that Gere realized he'd been played by a scoiopath of extroidinary skill)

Jet Jaguar
01-11-2001, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by RiffRaff
First off, I gotta disagree with you on the Truman show. I don't think any of the things you mention qualify as a plothole. Check it out:


Does everyone live in character the whole time?

Dunno. If they do, how does it make for a plothole? If they do not, how does it make for a plothole?


I think I can answer this one. Remember the scene with the elevator in that office(?) building? "Inside" the elevator were actors standing around behind the set, definitely out of character. I think the actors were only in character when Truman was present.

PatrickM
01-11-2001, 09:03 AM
The plot hole in Silence of the Lambs that always bugged me was that the FBI does not send assign rookie agents to solely handle any cases, let alone cases involving dangerous serial killers.

But then Hannibal's terrorizing of Agent Starling wouldn't have happened.

Balduran
01-11-2001, 09:03 AM
My aunt said that the lights on the airplane runways where she lived in northern Canada would go out all the time. The solution was simply to park a bunch of cars along the runway and turn their headlights on. Don't know why they couldn't do that during Die Hard 2.

Alessan
01-11-2001, 09:06 AM
You guys are ignoring the biggest plot hole in Die Hard 2: the fact that the Army only sent one 10-man team, commanded by a major, to deal with a terrorist situation in the nation's capital (the film even had the audacity to mention this, and then ignore it!).

In the real world, they would have had a Marine brigade airlifted within an hour, forming a paremeter around the airport. Every single member of the Washington PD they could organize would be on the scene, in full riot gear, and both the Virginia and Maryland National Guard would each send an armored division as soon as they could get them organized. Whatever Carrier Group happened to be at Norfolk would launch its entire air wing to circle the area. The FBI would send any available agents, including all the trainies at Quantico, for added security. SEALs, Green Berets, Rangers, Delta Force - anyone within a 3-hour flight radius would be there. And commanding the whole thing from the control tower would be the Joint Chief of Staff, helped by the National Security Advisor.

But no - "One crisis - one team". Right.

puddleglum
01-11-2001, 09:38 AM
Sleepless in seattle- The plot a girl hears a widower talking on the radio and falls in love with him. She writes him a letter and they end up falling in love and want to meet. The problem is that she is engaged. Her fiance is a nice guy who has alot of allergies. They have been dating for years, she just got a ring, they are planning the wedding, the whole nine yards. However as they have a romantic dinner on Valentine's day she announces I am leaving you for someone I've never even met. His reaction was a very mild disappointment. Not anger that she has been writing a man behind his back while pretending to be in love with him. Not sadness that the love of his life just gave him the kiss off on Valentine's day. He acts like the waiter just told him they were out of ranch dressing.
I liked the movie other than that but it just bothers me every time I see it.
There is a slightly similar scene in You've got Mail, also with Meg Ryan and written by Nora Ephron but that scene is almost plausible, becaue the boyfriend in that movie has a crush on someone else.

Jack Batty
01-11-2001, 10:24 AM
I just have to say some of these "plotholes" mentioned are too nit-picky. Can anyone say "suspension of disbelief". I'm not saying I disagree with all of them, but in movies like The Truman Show, we are given ample opportunity from the promos on to realize that this could never happen and that it's just a movie. To nitpick a point that "the constitution wouldn't allow this to happen" is tantamount to saying, "as if apes could ever evolve to rule the planet holding human's as slaves."
Some holes mentioned do irk me, like the magically appearing bullets in I Know What You Did ... and the Double Jeopordy professor misinterpreting the law, but in movies like The Matrix or Jurassic Park they could use fairy dust and leperchauns to explain plot difficiencies and I'd buy it because the plot is fantastical from the get-go.

I just had to get that off my chest. After all I have been accused of liking far too many movies and not hating enough (that's why Hollywood really needs me as a critic - the industry would boom), but don't let me spoil the fun.

Carry on.

JosephFinn
01-11-2001, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by bashere

Max Torque, in the movie, the whole "double jeopardy" theory is told by a convict. It sounds like typical criminal logic. In the movie itself, it is pretty clear that everyone else thinks she'll go to jail again if she really kills her ex.





Or, as Ebert put it, it's a good argument against getting legal advice from someone who works in the prison laundry.

Jekeira
01-11-2001, 11:24 AM
It's been a long time since I saw the movie "Copycat" with Sigourney Weaver. It was a good flick, but one thing struck me as a big plot hole. It may have been explained -- I don't remember.

(Spoilers follow.)

The serial killer is copycatting the techniques of other serial killers. When he kills a woman la the Hillside Stranglers, the police identify the semen of two different men in the body of the victim. The killer was able to obtain these two different samples because he works at a sperm bank.

What a huge clue! As I recall, the detectives never stop to wonder about how the killer managed to obtain the semen of two men other than himself. I don't remember that the detectives ever followed up on it at all. Of course, the movie would have been a lot shorter if they had ...

HelloKitty
01-11-2001, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Jekeira
It's been a long time since I saw the movie "Copycat" with Sigourney Weaver. It was a good flick, but one thing struck me as a big plot hole. It may have been explained -- I don't remember.

(Spoilers follow.)

The serial killer is copycatting the techniques of other serial killers. When he kills a woman la the Hillside Stranglers, the police identify the semen of two different men in the body of the victim. The killer was able to obtain these two different samples because he works at a sperm bank.

What a huge clue! As I recall, the detectives never stop to wonder about how the killer managed to obtain the semen of two men other than himself. I don't remember that the detectives ever followed up on it at all. Of course, the movie would have been a lot shorter if they had ...

Yeah, I think they guys on Law and Order could have figured this one out by the end of the first half hour, but the FBI agents in the movie couldn't.

Cervaise
01-11-2001, 01:02 PM
I know pointing out scientific inconsistencies in the Star Wars movies is like kickboxing with a first-grader, but bear with me.

At the end of the first movie, the Death Star sets out for Yavin to destroy the rebel base. They're following the tracker they put on the Millennium Falcon. The movie has already made it clear that in order to get from star system to star system, ships must enter lightspeed. (A small concession to reality.) So, by extension, the Death Star must be able to jump to lightspeed.

They get to Yavin. They're on the wrong side of the planet from the moon the rebels are using for their base. It'll take half an hour to orbit Yavin so they have a clear shot at the moon.

Seems to me they have two other options:

1. Jump to lightspeed for a moment and move to the opposite side of the planet.

2. Blow up Yavin. Or just shoot through it; it's a gas giant.

I know, I know, Star Wars is space opera, not science fiction. But still...

Alessan
01-11-2001, 01:16 PM
Pshaw. The real question is how the Millenium Falcon managed to get from Hoth to Bespin without entering hyperspace.

Bottle of Smoke
01-11-2001, 01:20 PM
I have one that I'm not sure qualifies as a plot hole or more of a "Oh, come on! That's utter BS!" In Mission Impossible 2, towards the end of the movie the chief henchman of the bad guy is duking it out with Tom Cruise. We don't get to see who won the fight, but moments later the henchman walks into the bad guy's room dragging Tom Cruise's semi-conscious body. The bad guy empties his gun into Cruise and chortles evilly. But wait, what's this? Something looks wrong with Crusie's finger. Why, it has the same wound that the henchman had. Gasp! The bad guy pulls the Tom Cruise face off the body he just shot full of holes and realizes it is really the henchman under one of those gee-whiz Mission Impossible masks.

Ok...so Tom Cruise inflitrated the bad guy's compound and just happened to bring a mask of the henchman and a mask of his own face? How did he know he would pull the ol' switcheroo? Or did he have a couple dozen masks in that little backpack in case he needed to switch identities with one of the other 20 armed goons he faught with? That scene stretched my credibility to the breaking point.

Bottle of Smoke
01-11-2001, 01:24 PM
Actually, my credibility wasn't at issue. My credulity was. I'm gonna stay away from the 25 cent words now.

Me!! Joe!!!
01-11-2001, 01:26 PM
The biggest plothole that has always bugged me was in "ET:the Extra-Terrestrial";

The movie starts with the alien ship landing and ET and his fellow non-humans exploring. Of course, the faceless government agents nearly corner ET and prevent him from rejoining his buddies as the UFO he came in takes off...

Fast forward an hour into the movie, ET uses his awesome mind powers to make Elliot, Elliot's bike, and ET himself fly over the hillside. Even later in the movie, ET levitates Elliot and a whole bunch of his friends towards the UFO which has returned to pick up ET.

WHY THE HELL DIDN'T ET JUST FLY BACK TO THE UFO IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE????????????????????????????????

AWB
01-11-2001, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by RiffRaff
Here's another issue that pops up in two sets of movies (probably more actually) - time travel, as seen in the Back To The Futures and the Terminators.

The basis of both of these is that someone travels back in time and does something to change events back in the present time. The problem is that the thing then never happened to cause the string of events that led up to them travelling back in time, so it should be safe to assume that in the updated present, they never travelled back to change events.

Even though the "Back to the Future" movies are amongst my favorites, the plot holes can be irritating.

Now, they did provide an explanation to the paradox you stated. Doc Brown said that there was a ripple effect, so that changes made by someone from the future wouldn't directly affect him until a while later. That's why Marty and his siblings disappeared one by one from his photo instead of instantaneously. (There wouldn't've been much of a movie if Marty had disappeared as soon as he'd shoved George out of his grandfather's car's path.)

Unstated in this was that if the time traveller went back to the future right away, he'd push the ripple with him to the future, so that the future would be changed when he got back. This is how old Biff from 2015 changed teen Biff's future (by giving him the almanac), didn't disappear, but upon returning to 2015 immediately started feeling the pangs of being erased from time (when he staggered from the Delorean). His actual fading was filmed but edited out of the movie (for some reason).

So, OK, I bought the ripple theory as the plot device for these movies. But then, in BTTF3, the photo of Doc Brown's tombstone (that was photographed in 1955) instantaneously changes from Doc's, to empty, to Eastwood's. It too should have only changed once the ripple effect from 1885 had reached 1955. This also goes for the 1985 newspapers that Doc and Marty had with them when they went to get the sports almanac from young Biff. Once Marty burned the almanac, the headlines changed instantly.

Cervaise
01-11-2001, 01:42 PM
Bottle of Smoke: (re MI:2) That scene stretched my <credulity> to the breaking point.
A better question, regarding that whole movie: The IMF didn't want to move in on the bad guy because they didn't know whether or not he had the virus, and they didn't want to take the risk of contaminating themselves, spreading an outbreak, etc. But then they find out he doesn't, in fact, have possession of the virus, and what's more, they know pretty much where it is and how it's being protected. Okay, so why don't they just airlift a coupla platoons of Marines into the bad guy's compound and shut down his whole operation right then and there?

ianzin
01-11-2001, 01:53 PM
Unbreakable...

SPOILER WARNING!
SPOILER WARNING!

v

v

v

v

So how come someone can live to be 40+ years old without ever realising he never gets sick, hurt or injured? Don't you think he might have already become just a little curious about this, without the help of mad old Sam Jackson?

Bottle of Smoke
01-11-2001, 02:18 PM
Cervaise -- Good point.

Along sort of the same line, when Tom Cruise is standing there watching the bad guy empty his gun into the mask-wearing henchman, why didn't Tommy just blow away the bad guy right there and then? Instead, he steals the antidote and runs away. Of course, if he did do the smart thing (blow away the bad guy) there would be no gravity defying John Woo martial arts battle. But they also would have saved a couple of nice motorcycles.

Alessan
01-11-2001, 02:27 PM
WHY THE HELL DIDN'T ET JUST FLY BACK TO THE UFO IN THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE????????????????????????????????


Because he didn't have a bike.

poohpah chalupa
01-11-2001, 05:16 PM
Originally posted by wring
...Norton's character lived in a very very tiny town in KY before the big city, and even in the book, it took a lot of digging to get the truth about him...
The trial of the killing of the Archbishop of Chicago is sure to be the top story in the headlines. Norton's face would've been plastered all over the television and in the newspaper. Somebody in this "tiny town" would've recognized him and come forth, if not for justice, then for publicity or money. Reporters would've been digging everywhere to break the story.
IRL, this would not have happened like this. Guaranteed.

Greg Charles
01-11-2001, 05:59 PM
In The River Wild, the whole premise is that the escaping bank robbers have no choice but to go through a dangerous area of rapids called the "Gauntlet". They force Meryl Streep to guide them through it at the risk of all their lives. However, Meryl's husband, who is portrayed as a geeky city boy, manages to escape and walk down the river, and he still arrives below the "Gauntlet" hours ahead of them.

OrcaChow
01-11-2001, 06:16 PM
Cervaise,

I chalked up the Death Star's ability to do hyperspace (but not as quickly as the M.F.) and its painfully slow move around Yavin this way:

An oil tanker can move at a decent clip in the open ocean, but takes a while to build up speed, and once in tight quarters it moves very cautiously like a pickup in low-gear. (Unless your Death Star is named "Exxon Valdez.")

ThisYearsGirl
01-11-2001, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by RiffRaff



Here's another issue that pops up in two sets of movies (probably more actually) - time travel, as seen in the Back To The Futures and the Terminators.



Have you ever seen the movie Frequency? The best about that movie was that the time traveling thing is never really explained. At least in other movies there's some "magnetic wrinkle in the universe depending on an electrical storm in space" bullshit explanations, but not in Frequency. They were just, "Oh by the way, there's come screwing around with time." I thought it was hysterical.

Lamia
01-11-2001, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by ThisYearsGirl

Have you ever seen the movie Frequency? The best about that movie was that the time traveling thing is never really explained. At least in other movies there's some "magnetic wrinkle in the universe depending on an electrical storm in space" bullshit explanations, but not in Frequency. They were just, "Oh by the way, there's come screwing around with time." I thought it was hysterical.

In Frequency was implied that the unusually high level of sunspot activity allowed the radio to transmit back in time.

Speaking of Frequency, the ending was riddled with plot holes. I expect to have to suspend my disbelief in a movie that deals with changing the past, but the scriptwriters could have at least stayed consistent with their own rules. I'll try not to spoil it too much for those who haven't seen it, but the movie showed again and again that when history changed no one but the main character was aware of it. Then the movie ends with the villain being distracted at a crucial moment by a sudden change in the timeline! What's more, the changes to the timeline are such that once they have taken place there is no longer any sane reason for the villain to be coming after the hero.

Ben
01-11-2001, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by rjung
I'd just like to comment that I thought the movie Deep Impact was one big gaping plot hole. The annoying part was watch all the human characters sidestep the solutions; by the end of the movie, I was rooting for the asteroid to wipe out the Planet of the Morons.


I'm glad I'm not the only one. Maybe it's the whole "Fighting Ignorance" thing, but I have a real problem with movies where it's presented as natural, even desirable, for everyone to act like a sappy dope!

-Ben

Orbifold
01-11-2001, 09:40 PM
Highlander 3. At one point in the movie, Mario Van Peebles and his henchmen are released from a cave in Japan, in which they've been trapped for who knows how many centuries. Mario turns to one of his henchmen and says "Find the Highlander."

And the henchman finds him. In a laundry room in the basement of a mental hospital in New York City! At most a week or two later! What the hell??? How did he know where to look? How did he get across the Pacific? How does a sword-wielding barbarian with manners a thousand years old cross North America and get into the basement of a psychiatric hospital in a major city, without anyone raising an eyebrow? And all in a matter of weeks instead of months or years?

Never mind asking how the Highlander is capable of making a katana despite the fact that he clearly lacks the skill to make a simple broadsword...what an awful, awful movie.

Darqangelle
01-12-2001, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by Math Geek
Highlander 3
[RANT: ON]
Oh man... there's something I always had a problem with.

"Highlander" was a story with a beginning, a middle, and (most importantly) an end. It was great. I loved it.

I heard about the atrocity of 2, I saw the atrocity that was 3 (rented for cheap, and figured if 2 was worse, then ignorance is bliss), I'm somewhat amused but uninterested entirely in 4.

It was a good movie. The story was done. Let it go...
And this stuff about creating a brother for the sake of making a series (as good as it was) is just TurtlePucks. They could've wisely made a series out of a collection of stories of various immortals through time... but NO, they have to use the money-making "highlander" name. Same place, same clan, same last name...

Bloody Hollywood.
[RANT: OFF]

RealityChuck
01-12-2001, 11:11 AM
Alien is filled with stupidities and plot holes. Never mind no one thinks of the obvious solution to their problem or tries to figure out which direction the alien is coming from when he attack or won't bother to fire a weapon at him. Maybe they are just dumb as rocks.

But the Nostromo is owned by a big corporation. It's obvious that corporation's owners aren't going to care about about the crew. But why in hell did they put those billions of tons of ore aboard in jeopardy? It had to be fairly valuable stuff or they wouldn't have mined it in the first place.

And why in God's name do they smoke aboard a spaceship? It's not like oxygen is a plentiful substance the space.

BTW, I don't consider any version of time paradox to be a plot hole. There is no way of knowing what might happen with a time machine, so you can't say what was logical and what isn't. If time travel exists, anything goes, and cause and effect goes right out the window.

betenoir
01-12-2001, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Jack Batty
I'm not saying I disagree with all of them, but in movies like The Truman Show, we are given ample opportunity from the promos on to realize that this could never happen and that it's just a movie. To nitpick a point that "the constitution wouldn't allow this to happen" is tantamount to saying, "as if apes could ever evolve to rule the planet holding human's as slaves."

Feh. It may not be a plothole, really, but it's not a nitpick.

It's not like saying "oh apes couldn't take over the world". I'm not questioning the basic premise, I'm asking that once you esablish a premise the rest of the movie live up to it.

Given that premise, the satire in the rest of the Truman Show should have been a whole lot darker. I know it's "just a movie", but movies (to be any good) have to have an internal integrity.

Jack Batty
01-12-2001, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by betenoir
I'm asking that once you esablish a premise the rest of the movie live up to it.

Here's the thing - I didn't really like The Truman Show all that much, but how much "living up" do you want? Do you want to see how Truman deals with the life he has been forced into, or do you want to see flashbacks to congessional hearings regarding whether or not the show's producers should be able to get away with it?

I just thought that for that particular movie's premise, they explained all they needed to to start examining the inherent human tragedies of the fictional show's actions. See what I mean?
If I were to make a movie set in an alternate universe, I would want to tell a story, not explain it's existance.

ianzin
01-12-2001, 01:15 PM
For anyone interested in such things, here's a massive collection of movie nitpicks:

http://www.nitpickers.com/

CalMeacham
01-12-2001, 01:15 PM
I agree about "Alien". That movie bothered me enormously -- the biggest cliche of monster flicks is used repeatedly -- "There's a monster loose on this ship. All of us are going over here. YOU go over there, where it's dark." They used it three times! They build a "monster detector" to locate the beast. They find it, then they can't tell the captain which way to go to avoid it! Then they never use the thing again!And surprise, one crew member turns out to be a robot! That came totally out of left field -- they never even TOLD us they had robots in this future.

To fans of sf film, "Alien" seems to owe a LOT to an almost-forgotten Jerome Bixby film of the 1950s entitled "It! The Terror from Beyond Space". Rent it. "It" doesn't have the rich Ridley Scott atmosphere, but it's an intelligent film, and unjustly neglected. (Bixby also gave us "Fantastic Voyage" and the "It's a GOOD Life" episode of Twilight Zone, not to mention "Atomic Missile" and "Curse of the Faceless Man". Worth seeing.)

(I have to add that I loved "Aliens" Cameron is a hell of a film maker (if you ignore Titanic). "Aliens" is intelligent and well made.)

barstow
01-12-2001, 01:35 PM
Mission Impossible 2

Not only are the masks good enough to fool people from across the room in a shootout, which is hard enough.

They also are supposed to work in close up hugging and kissing scenes.

Um...don't masks look and feel like rubber, and taste and smell like rubber cement?

Silvio
01-12-2001, 05:23 PM
Speaking of Alien, as I've mentioned before on another thread, why in the hell didn't Ripley in Aliens think to bring extra clips when she made her final assault to rescue little Newt? She took the time to tape the flame thrower to the assault rifle and fill her pockets with grenades. If she had just brought one extra clip, she could have wasted the alien mama. Pretty stupid.

And then there's SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. At the end of the movie, there is a small group of paratroopers without heavy anti-armor weapons. They are at a bridge which is evidently Rommel's last chance to bring in armored forces to threaten the Allied beach head. They have tons of explosives, but their orders are to hold the bridge. No way. Blow that sucker up. It wouldn't have even been a second thought. The Allies had the superior engineering forces to rebuild the bridge if they needed it, and there's no way the Germans could have rebuilt it with Allied airpower, especially with paratroopers on the other side shooting at them. Really, really stupid.

Cervaise
01-12-2001, 05:49 PM
To fans of sf film, "Alien" seems to owe a LOT to an almost-forgotten Jerome Bixby film of the 1950s entitled "It! The Terror from Beyond Space".
...By way of John Carpenter's Dark Star, which was co-written by (and features as an actor) Dan O'Bannon, who would later co-write Alien. Carpenter and O'Bannon were clearly referencing It! (among other things), so makes sense that the same co-writer would revisit similar territory.

Sealemon88
01-12-2001, 05:51 PM
Starship Troopers...I know, it's that 'kickboxing wit a first grader' thing again, but I really question the idea of invading a bunch of obviously crap planets with infantry. No armor, no air support (Except one bombing run), no heavy weapontry.

The thing is, the bugs were launching asteroids at Earth from their home system, right? So, when our ships got to their system, <b>why didn't we launch their asteroids right back at them? They were right there in orbit!!! Why not carpet nuke the planet and be done with it?</b>

I know the ST the movie was a parody of WW2 propaganda, but the complete idiocy of the battle tactics were a little to much.

Great film, though.

Spatial Rift 47
01-12-2001, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by LifeWillFall
While questioning Morpheous, Agent Smith says that at one point the human rejected the world created and began trying to wake up.

Why create a world at all? Keep them in simple unconsciousness, in constant REM. Let the humans provide their own world.

For all you Trekkers . . .
In Star Trek: Insurrection, at one pint Cmdr. Riker is racing the Enterprise from two Son'a ships. It is explicity stated that they will be in firing range in 18 minutes. Thirty seconds later, the Enterprise is hit with a photon torpedo.

archmichael
01-13-2001, 02:28 AM
My favorite movie to mine plotholes is Independence Day. Let take a look at all the lessons learned.

1) Alien computers are Mac compatible.
2) Alien ships, spanning several miles in diameter and weighing an unknown number of tons, can be severely damaged by air-to-air missiles.
3) Never fire the main alien gun, because of a design flaw that will destroy the ship itself.
4) Alien numerical fighter superiority means nothing against the skill of our flyboys.
5) Alien ships once destroyed will always crash away from the population centers they were hovering over.
6) And so on...
7) and so forth...

Smeghead
01-13-2001, 02:29 AM
Can't believe no one's mentioned Godzilla. That thing was the godfather of all plot holes. The plot was Swiss-cheese like. Brutal.

I know most people have seen lists of problems in the movie, but there's one thing that was glaring to me that I've never seen mentioned. Recall, if you can after the months of therapy seeing this movie required, the scene in the Madison Square Garden. Our "heroes" enter the MSG through a giant, gaping hole in the floor that was dug by mommy Godzilla. They then decide they need to trap all the baby Godzillas in the building, which they do by blocking all the doors, with apporpriate drama and special effects. Surprise, surprise, they manage to get the building secure and escape at the last second. Not once does anyone consider that maybe one of the hundreds of babies managed to crawl out that huge gaping hole in the ground. You know, the one through which you entered? The one around which all the eggs were carefully arranged? The one that was much bigger than any door in the building??

Cervaise
01-13-2001, 12:02 PM
For all you Trekkers . . .
Oh, that reminds me of another one. In Star Trek: Generations, the Malcolm McDowell character fires a missile from the surface of the planet toward the sun. The planet, we note, is fully hospitable to human life, i.e. in Trek parlance "class M." It takes, IIRC, eleven seconds for the missile to make the trip from planet to sun.

So, in other words: Either the planet is about two million miles from the sun, which is less than a twentieth of the orbital distance of our own Mercury (which is clearly inhospitable to human life), or the missile is flying at a considerable multiple of the speed of light, which is ridiculous. (It isn't flying at warp; the Enterprise crew watches it go.)

There is a third alternative: The system's sun is miniscule, perhaps a brown dwarf, and its energy output is so low that the extremely close planet gets about the same amount of heat/light as would Earth, a hundred times farther away. This also accounts for how quickly the sun's explosion reaches the planet... :rolleyes:

Max Torque
01-13-2001, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by archmichael
1) Alien computers are Mac compatible.

As an addendum to this: it's stated in the Area 51 area that the scientists (for 50 years, mind you) couldn't get the crashed alien ship working because they "couldn't replicate the kind of power they use". Christ, if even their electricity isn't like ours, how can a computer of any kind be plugged into their system?

ThisYearsGirl
01-13-2001, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by silent_rob
. . . we then checked out the crapfest that is I Still Know...! It has one of the biggest plotholes I have ever seen! . . .


You know, the title of this movie is a plot hole in itself. Shouldn't it be I Still Know What You Did Two Summers Ago? Or I Know Something Else That You Did Last Summer, since there's a two year gap between the murder and sequel?

Enderw24
01-13-2001, 07:32 PM
1) The missle that McDowell fired did not change the mass of the star. If that's the case, then the rift wouldn't change course from a change in the galaxy's gravity.

2) The collapse of the star sounds strangely familiar to the ability of the Tox Ootat (which I am horribly misspelling). That was the thing that Picard was searching for on Risa in one of the episodes of the series. It was stolen 29th century technology.

Finagle
01-13-2001, 09:44 PM
I always thought Hitchcock's The Birds had an amazing plot hole, to wit, the bad guys were, well, birds. Not acid spewing aliens, not 40 ton atomic mutant lizards, just birds. Which means that if the protagonists had been even marginally smarter than the birds, the movie would have been over in about five minutes.

Your average bird weighs about five ounces. (Let's not get into laden or unladen swallows here.) Even large seagulls probably don't weigh much more than ten pounds. And they've got hollow lightweight bones. So when birds invade, you put on a heavy jacket and some gloves. You go down to the basement and get some safety goggles, a helmet if you've got one, and, most importantly, a tennis racket. Then it's just clobbering time.

Max the Immortal
01-14-2001, 06:59 AM
Unbreakable:
How can you be a football player and think it's normal to not get injured? How can you not realize you've never been sick?

Independence Day:
Maybe the computers had some alien-to-macintosh translator. Oh, wait, but then the alien computers would still have to use ASCII, right?

Gilligan
01-14-2001, 10:44 AM
I liked Face Off, but there was one thing I didn't understand. (If this was explained in the movie, I missed it.) When Troy wakes up without his face, he calls his gang, who bring in the doctors to give him Archer's face. But when Archer, wearing Troy's face, escapes and then shows up with the gang, why don't they know it isn't him? They helped him get Archer's face; they know what happened. How can they not know that someone who shows up with Troy's face is Archer?

Salieri2
01-14-2001, 10:59 AM
Can hardly bear to think about this movie, in which two of my favorite actors scored their second strikes towards box office poison for me [for Tommy Lee the first was Double Jeapordy and for Samuel L. it was (shudder) Sphere....

If you were smart enough to skip this stinker, here's the gist...Sam L is being court-martialed for murder under the premise that he ordered a bunch of Marines to fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians at an embassy in Yemen, leaving 83 dead and more wounded. He says he clearly remembers scores of armed men, women and children blasting away like Rambo, causing him to order the return of fire, and yet this is apparently completely unsupported by any physical evidence or eyewitnesses, including the Marines who shot back!!! We are supposed to wonder if he's a psychopath or a scapegoat, dramatic tension, blah blah.

SPOILER
And in the end it turns out that he was indeed correct, and practically every moving human in the crowd was armed to the teeth and spraying bullets all over this embassy. Are we then supposed to believe that between the time their comrades were killed and the moment Sam ordered the cease fire they somehow hid ALL OF THEIR WEAPONS so that when he peeks over the wall he doesn't see the guns? Or that the men under Sam's command had their eyes closed while shooting? Or that as soon as they jumped in their choppers and left, the uninjured members of the mob crawled all over the facade of the embassy, digging out thousands of rounds from the stone and spackling over the holes??

Salieri2
01-14-2001, 11:14 AM
Of course, the correct spelling would be "Jeopardy."

New & Improved Scott
01-14-2001, 11:27 AM
For Alien, one of the major plot holes that was never touched upon in the movie (but was explaned later in novels and comics, so not everyone knows about it) is how did the aliens send out a distress beacon?

If they were advanced enough to create and operate a ship with a distress signal, why were they baffled by doors in the movie. In the sequel, it`s a big deal when the QUEEN figures out how the elevator works.


The answer to these holes is kinda cool, in my opinion anyway. Predators.

The Predator race (you know Ah-nold in the jungle and ugly alien hunter chasing him) uses aliens to train with. They breed them in these big ships, and let a few loose on a barren planet to later go hunt them down. They think humans are the dangerous hunt, cuz we`re so wily and the like, so we`re reserved for expierianced predators.

So the ship in Alien is a Predator ship that went down, and the Aliens went wild.


On a side note, you can see the skull of an Alien in the Predator ship near the end of Predator 2.

On another side note, the movie Species was going to be tied into this theory as a way for Predators to have a Really dangerous prey, but the idea was dropped when the Aliens/Predator movie fell apart in pre-production.

Don`t you feel better for knowing?

tiggeril
01-14-2001, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Enderw24
1) The missle that McDowell fired did not change the mass of the star. If that's the case, then the rift wouldn't change course from a change in the galaxy's gravity.

In the animation Picard has Data pull up on the Enterprise, we learn that Malcom plans to blow up the star in order to push the rift towards whatver planet he's on. In the animation, the star explodes and shoves the rift over, and all the other objects in the system stay stationary. The force resultant from the explosion would send all other objects flying into space. Unless this is some sort of missile that defies all laws of motion. Newton was probably spinning in his grave.

Jack Batty
01-14-2001, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by Salieri2

If you were smart enough to skip this stinker, here's the gist...Sam L is being court-martialed for murder under the premise that he ordered a bunch of Marines to fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians at an embassy in Yemen, leaving 83 dead and more wounded. ...
And in the end it turns out that he was indeed correct, and practically every moving human in the crowd was armed to the teeth and spraying bullets all over this embassy.
Funny you should bring that up. We just rented that movie Friday night, having not heard too much about it. Tommy Lee Jones and Samual L. Jackson's performances were top-notch, but that gaping incongruity totally blew the movie for me. Ferchrissake, who took the pictures of the bodies, and when? What the hell did the marines do when the fire-fight was over, just bug out? You would think they would police the area after the hoo-ha, surely they would have found at least one of the several dozen weapons being fired from the crowd. And they show this flash of a scene where a little girl is firing a powerful looking handgun, with one hand, like it was a squirt gun.
I wish they would have come up with a more plausible situation, because I really enjoyed the courtroom scenes.

Spatial Rift 47
01-14-2001, 03:17 PM
In the animation, the star explodes and shoves the rift over, and all the other objects in the system stay stationary. The force resultant from the explosion would send all other objects flying into space. Unless this is some sort of missile that defies all laws of motion.

The other objects were stars hundreds of light years away. The shift was imperceptible on that animation.

waterj2
01-14-2001, 04:01 PM
In Entrapment, when the truth is revealed at the end, nothing anyone has done makes sense any longer. Granted, it comes as a surprise, just because it is completely inconsistent with the whole rest of the movie.

tiggeril
01-14-2001, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Admiral Borg

In the animation, the star explodes and shoves the rift over, and all the other objects in the system stay stationary. The force resultant from the explosion would send all other objects flying into space. Unless this is some sort of missile that defies all laws of motion.

The other objects were stars hundreds of light years away. The shift was imperceptible on that animation.



No, the system they were in was similar to our solar system, as there was a central star like our sun, and planets, which we learned were inhabited. They talked about the destruction of that star killing the millions of people on those planets. If, for example, our Sun were to explode, the planets in our system would not stay within their orbits, but be blown out from the blast.

Skywatcher
03-15-2002, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by Lamia
Speaking of Frequency, the ending was riddled with plot holes. I expect to have to suspend my disbelief in a movie that deals with changing the past, but the scriptwriters could have at least stayed consistent with their own rules. I'll try not to spoil it too much for those who haven't seen it, but the movie showed again and again that when history changed no one but the main character was aware of it. Then the movie ends with the villain being distracted at a crucial moment by a sudden change in the timeline! What's more, the changes to the timeline are such that once they have taken place there is no longer any sane reason for the villain to be coming after the hero.
I just saw Frequency on Encore last night and had problems with this part myself. I think what the filmmakers had in mind is Jack Shepard going after the family in the past and the son in the present are unrelated events. The reason he went after the son is to protect himself from the only one in that timeline who can finger him for the murders. Because only the son is aware of all timelines, the present Jack didn't know of his actions agaist the family thirty years prior. Also remember that some events in the past have a corollary in the present, such as the falling radio set and the falling baseball. The Jack in the past was distracted by hearing his future self over the radio, enabling the mother to jump him and resulting in his hand being essentially shot off. The Jack in the present had been using that hand to hold down the son. How would you feel if you suddenly lost a part of your body and have no idea how it happened?

Legomancer
03-15-2002, 10:06 AM
More Star Trek movies:

In "Generations" someone asks Soren why he can't just ply a ship into the Nexus. He says you can't get into it that way. Tell that to Kirk, cause that's EXACTLY how he got into it.

I'll leave alone for the moment that they can exit the nexus at any time and place they want, and instead of doing so on ten-forward, where Soren is standing harmlessly among many crew members and guards, they pick five minutes before he blows up the sun.

In Star Trek 6 they find the cloaked Klingon ship using the device they were using to study stellar phenomena at the beginning of the movie. Except they weren't studying that stellar phenomena, a different ship was.



Regarding the Alien distress beacin, I always assumed it was the "Space Jockey" race that sent the beacon, not the aliens themselves.

easy e
03-15-2002, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Osip
Not a pothole but something that irked me in the Matrix.
When trinity places the gun against the agents head she is standing to the side of him. She pulls the trigger, camera angle changes and the agent flies directly back as though he was shot from the front.


The way I understood this was as follows:

-when the agent took over the SWAT guy's body, he came in somewhat sideways (his face was where the side of SWAT dude's head was)
-Trinity shot where the side of the agent's head was (really the front of SWAT dude's head)
-the agent's program leaves, and we see that indeed, SWAT dude was shot in the front

AV8R
03-15-2002, 01:02 PM
It's been awhile since I've seen Blues Brothers, so forgive my inaccuracies, but here goes.....

After Jake gets the band back together, they start driving around without really having a gig lined up. They see a sign promoting the "Good Ol' Boys" at a country bar, go in and introduce themselves as the band, and play until closing.
After closing time, the bar owner wants Jake to pay for the beer. Right about then, the real Good Ol' Boys drive up.

Jake and the band quickly drive away, and the bar owner and the Good Ol' Boys chase after them in angry pursuit.

Why did the real Good Ol' Boys show up after closing time? They seemed totally unaware that they were late. And why were they upset with Jake and his band?

Skywatcher
03-15-2002, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by AV8R
Why did the real Good Ol' Boys show up after closing time? They seemed totally unaware that they were late. And why were they upset with Jake and his band? Didn't they get lost? Then they were further stalled by Jake and finally learned that the Blues Brothers had taken their gig and stiffed Bob for the beer.

Lamia
03-15-2002, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Jeff Olsen

The Jack in the past was distracted by hearing his future self over the radio, enabling the mother to jump him and resulting in his hand being essentially shot off. The Jack in the present had been using that hand to hold down the son. How would you feel if you suddenly lost a part of your body and have no idea how it happened?

But the thing is, Frequency made it quite clear from the beginning that changes to the timeline were retroactive. No one was aware of the different timelines except for the son. So from Jack's perspective he didn't suddenly loose a hand. He lost the hand thirty years ago.

Here's another plothole from a movie I've seen in the time since the OP. Spoilers for the ending of Velvet Goldmine follow...

*

*

*

Arthur realizes that long-vanished rock star Brian Slade is the same person as current rock star Tommy Stone when he sees that Stone has the same personal assistant that Slade had years before.

Problem #1: The assistant had previously appeared only in the flashbacks of other characters. There was no indication that Arthur had ever met or even seen a photo of her before, so how could he recognize her?

Problem #2: Why should Arthur assume that Stone and Slade are the same person because they have the same assistant rather than thinking that the assistant just got a new job once her former employer's career went down the tubes?

There were other gaps in the movie, but this was the one that was most frustrating for me.

HelloKitty
03-15-2002, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by PatrickM
The plot hole in Silence of the Lambs that always bugged me was that the FBI does not send assign rookie agents to solely handle any cases, let alone cases involving dangerous serial killers.

But then Hannibal's terrorizing of Agent Starling wouldn't have happened.

I think the reason she got this assignment was because of her relationship with the Scott Glenn character. IIRC, he was her "mentor" and was giving her a shot based on the abilities he observed in her. I think this was explained in more detail in the book.

NE Texan
03-15-2002, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by Gilligan
I liked Face Off, but there was one thing I didn't understand. (If this was explained in the movie, I missed it.) When Troy wakes up without his face, he calls his gang, who bring in the doctors to give him Archer's face. But when Archer, wearing Troy's face, escapes and then shows up with the gang, why don't they know it isn't him? They helped him get Archer's face; they know what happened. How can they not know that someone who shows up with Troy's face is Archer?

While Face Off did have some plot holes, this part they at least tried to explain. (It's been a while since I saw the movie, so forgive me for not remembering more characters' names.)

Archer (Travolta->Cage->Travolta) is approached to impersonate Troy in secret. Only one other official, and the doctors, know about the impersonation; even Archer's team does NOT know. When Troy (Cage->Travolta->Dead) wakes up, and makes the doctors fix him up with the "Travolta" face (sorry for the mental image there), he then kills everyone who knows the difference - the doctors and the official that knows. Archer's team never knows this, so they accept Troy as Archer.

Some things that are still plot holes to me here:
* Why was the official (whose name I forget) there at the facility when Troy wakes up? [I could probably let this go as just chance]
* To complete the disguises, it isn't just the face - it's also a voice synthesizer (or something to change the voice). They put a lot of effort into creating this for Travolta to sound like Cage. They had NO REASON they would have made this already for Cage to sound like Travolta, and nothing in the movie indicates they could have tossed that together.
* They gloss over (for my taste) the investigation of the crime of killing the doctors and destroying the medical facility.

There were some other things that seemed wrong at the time, but I don't remember them now.

Bryan Ekers
03-15-2002, 05:16 PM
Hey, as long as someone's mentioned Mission Impossible 2, I'll just rag on the original.

The whole CIA headquarters sequence makes no sense at all. So they fake a fire alarm and send in their people disguised as firefighters. Shouldn't the real firefighters show up eventually? But the single dumbest moment in the whole movie, and one of the dumbest moments I've ever seen in American cinema, comes when the disguised MI team jog down a crowded hallway, following a CIA guard carrying an uzi. Emanuelle Bart slips to the rear of the group, looks around slyly and ducks into a ridiculously convenient unlocked closet and no-one notices! I actually said "yeah, right!" out loud in the theatre because it was so preposterous. If a guy with an uzi and a bunch of firemen ran down a hallway at my workplace, you can bet that every single bystander would be watching them, for their novelty value if nothing else.

Die Hard II was a nightmare of plot holes. One of the biggest is the "let's shoot blanks at each other so we'll look convincing" bit. Convincing to who? Willis? Dennis Franz? if the army guys really wanted to look convincing, why not just kill Willis and Franz and claim the terrorists did it? Why the charade? During the scene when the terrorists are changing from red-stripe magazines to blue, I thought "Uh-oh, this is going to be nasty because armor-piercing rounds usually have a blue label." Then nothing! Yeesh! And when Willis tries to prove his point by emptying a magazine of blanks in the airport police station, why didn't one of the other cops shoot him dead on the spot?

And I dont care how unbreakable you are, if you fall off the wing of a 747 onto a concrete runway as the jet approaches takeoff speed, you're not walking away. Period. Maybe the thin layer of snow cushioned his fall. And I'm pretty jet fuel does not behave like Yosemite Sam's gunpowder in that you coud leave a trail, light one end, and have flames shoot to the other end.

And of course, the whole plan hinges on the bad guys getting away in a 747. A large, easily trackable 747? You could dust off a rusty Phantom F-4 and shoot that lumbering beast out of the sky, no sweat!

Bryan Ekers
03-15-2002, 07:40 PM
More of a nitpick, since I otherwise consider this one of my favorite sci-fi movies, but the ending of Predator has a glitch. (spoilers follow).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
After the Predator goes boom, you see the helicopter on the periphery of the explosion, the same helicopter that was sent to extract the commandoes. The female guerrila is riding in the chopper.

Seems to me that if I was in a gunship waiting around on the border of a hot zone to extract a commando team and some bimbo came crashing out the woods screaming about the Devil That Makes Trophies Of Men, I'd blow her away on the spot.

Funky
03-15-2002, 08:15 PM
In reply to the query as to why the AI's ddn't just give the agents huge indestructible bodies is because they had human form so that they could interact with people in the matrix without being too conspicuous. If they stood out like that they would have been to easy to avoid.

Why didn't they just blow up where the Oracle lived??? Well because they couldn't find out where it was.

I agree that the first person out of the Matrix joined up with the "freeborns" in Zion.
:wally

Ellen Cherry
03-15-2002, 08:20 PM
I'm not sure if this is a hole of just a nitpick but it ruined Primal Fear for me. The killer is described as an altar boy at the cathedral for the bishop. As if it's some sort of job that he applied for and received. And how old is he -- at least 17 or 18? Altar boys (and girls), in my experience, are usually middle-school age kids. And it something they do in service of the Mass, not some hourly wage job, as the movie makes it appear.

Guinastasia
03-15-2002, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by OrcaChow
Cervaise,

I chalked up the Death Star's ability to do hyperspace (but not as quickly as the M.F.) and its painfully slow move around Yavin this way:

An oil tanker can move at a decent clip in the open ocean, but takes a while to build up speed, and once in tight quarters it moves very cautiously like a pickup in low-gear. (Unless your Death Star is named "Exxon Valdez.")

But you have to keep in mind that hyperspace jumps are very complicated-and microjumps are extremely dangerous. You can often end up landing right in the middle of a planet and killing yourself.

Diceman
03-15-2002, 10:04 PM
The Star Wars books cover hyperspace travel pretty well. You cannot enter hyperspace if you are too close to a large source of gravity, such as a planet or star. Also, hyperspace apparently does not allow you to pass through solid objects. Remember, Han Solo's lines in the first movie: "Without precise calculations, we could fly right through a star, or bounce too close to a supernova, and that would injure something real quick." IOW, trying to fly through the planet Yavin is a Very Bad Idea, even when travelling in hyperspace.

One question that I wonder about is: why the heck didn't Leah and the others get off of the planet before the Death Star came? They could still launch the attack to destroy the Death Star, but why have your top commanders sit around defenseless?

Czarcasm
03-15-2002, 11:02 PM
Moving this to Cafe Society.

Ranchoth
03-16-2002, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by HelloKitty


Yeah, I think they guys on Law and Order could have figured this one out by the end of the first half hour, but the FBI agents in the movie couldn't.

And the mistake with that is...? :D ;)




Ranchoth
("Don't call me sir, I work for a living.")

kaylasdad99
03-16-2002, 03:02 AM
...but bear with me:

In Sleeping Beauty, Princess Aurora (aka Briar Rose) is lured up into the tower by Maleficent's will-o'-the-wisp. Then she sees the spinning wheel. Maleficent's voice says "Touch the spindle. Touch it!" And then Aurora touches the spindle, and falls asleep, yadda, yadda, you know the drill.

But since King Stefan had burned all of the spinning wheels in the kingdom when Aurora was a tiny baby, this had to be the first spinniing wheel she'd ever seen. So how did she know what part was the spindle?

ftg
03-16-2002, 04:47 PM
Dogma: Bartleby (sp?) and Loki are going to destroy existence (and really mess up Jay's blunt business) by walking thru the church door, get their sins forgiven, die without sin, and go to heaven, contradicting God/Alanis Morisette/Bud Cort.

Presumably after walking thru the church door they are still intent on destroying the universe. Which strikes me as a pretty big sin. (And Christianity treats intentions the same as actions.) Ergo, not going to Heaven, existence is saved and Kevin Smith should stick to simpler stuff.

And Hollow Man is the worst invisible man movie ever.

Tars Tarkas
03-16-2002, 05:02 PM
In Dogma, at first they didn't know they were going to destroy the universe, but after they find out, Bartelby decides to go with it. He would have a clean slate when he comes out, including all intention to destroy the universe. He would then be immediatly shot dead by cops, without time to think about destroying the universe. Therefore, the universe is destroyed, and we never here God sing about women going down on a dude in a movie theater.

borschevsky
03-16-2002, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by AWB


Even though the "Back to the Future" movies are amongst my favorites, the plot holes can be irritating.

Now, they did provide an explanation to the paradox you stated. Doc Brown said that there was a ripple effect, so that changes made by someone from the future wouldn't directly affect him until a while later. That's why Marty and his siblings disappeared one by one from his photo instead of instantaneously. (There wouldn't've been much of a movie if Marty had disappeared as soon as he'd shoved George out of his grandfather's car's path.)

Unstated in this was that if the time traveller went back to the future right away, he'd push the ripple with him to the future, so that the future would be changed when he got back. This is how old Biff from 2015 changed teen Biff's future (by giving him the almanac), didn't disappear, but upon returning to 2015 immediately started feeling the pangs of being erased from time (when he staggered from the Delorean). His actual fading was filmed but edited out of the movie (for some reason).

So, OK, I bought the ripple theory as the plot device for these movies. But then, in BTTF3, the photo of Doc Brown's tombstone (that was photographed in 1955) instantaneously changes from Doc's, to empty, to Eastwood's. It too should have only changed once the ripple effect from 1885 had reached 1955. This also goes for the 1985 newspapers that Doc and Marty had with them when they went to get the sports almanac from young Biff. Once Marty burned the almanac, the headlines changed instantly.

Well, I think the way the photos work is consistent. In BTTF 1, Marty's siblings fade out oldest to youngest, which I guess is being caused by the ripple moving forward in time to their births. So the contents of the photo are being changed, not the photo itself. So the ripple takes a little while to get to Marty's brother, who fades out of the picture, then Marty's sister, etc. In BTTF 3, the engraving of the tombstone only happens a few days after the events that are changing it, so the ripple effects should reach it very quickly.

So the photos at least are consistent, but I agree the newspapers (and that "you're fired!" FAX from 2015) seem to act differently.

KillerHamster
03-16-2002, 07:12 PM
DIE HARD 2:

The BIGGEST plot hole in the movie (and I don't think anyone mentioned this) is that you don't need a stupid control tower to talk to the airplanes!!!

Remember how big of a deal this was? The pilots on the airplanes had no idea what was going on because the people on the ground couldn't communicate with them because the outbound communications had been disabled by the bad guys. But then there was a big scene where they tried to get over to another communications center so that they could broadcast a signal to the airplanes to tell them what was going on, and then that failed.

You can broadcast a signal from anywhere!! You can get in a plane sitting on the ground that has a radio and talk to all the other planes on the frequency. You can even walk into Radio Shack and buy a transciever to broadcast to all the planes! You don't need a damn control tower. All you need is a pocket radio! The bad guys shutting down the communications systems would have had no effect whatsoever in the real world.

And the planes were in the holding pattern from 1.5 to 2 hours! If right at the beginning of the movie someone pulled a radio out of their pocket and told all the planes to land at some other airport, the planes could have at LEAST and hour's worth of fuel left to go elsewhere. An HOUR--they could have flown to dozens of major airports with perfect weather in that time period.

Thus, the whole "radio problem" in the movie is the biggest plot hole, because without it, the movie would be over. The bad guys would have hijacked a useless airport and would have nothing to "hold hostage", since all the planes would have flown elsewhere.

Diff T
03-16-2002, 08:29 PM
The Truman Show was my Fav. Movie of all Time... They could not possibly answer EVERY SINGLE QUESTION in the movie. However Peter Weir once said the he spent a year rationalizing the concept in his head and there were few questions you could ask him that he wouldn't have an answer to. I read the screenplay that answers a few question in bonus areas of the book.

It is, to me, sort of ridiculous that you bring all this up... Truman Show is more of a FANTASY than it is SCI-FI. But over all it's a great picture that sparked my imagination

Tuckerfan
03-16-2002, 08:50 PM
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, okay the Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant (Which causes further problems when you think about the Voyager series since they somehow ended up in another quadrant, and then again with DS9 with its quadrant, apparently the mapping descriptions of the Federation are a little different than the ones we're using.), and it's filled with trainees. So, do they order Enterprise go check out Regula One and tell them to immediately withdraw and await re-enforcements if they encounter any hostile activity? No.

Then, of course, there's the whole bit with the Genesis device after Khan triggers it. If they can't beam aboard and stop it, why not just blow the Reliant up? Its not like it isn't going to happen anyway, and Spock wouldn't have to race down to the engine room, grab the radioactive stuff and die.

The remake of Planet of the Apes. Why is the US government spending zillions of dollars to breed and train genetically engineered monkeys on a space station orbiting Saturn so they can fly them into strange time vortexes, when it would be cheaper and easier to send automated probes in?

MyFootsZZZ
03-16-2002, 09:04 PM
What the hell do you expect from The Truman Show!?

It would take 6 hours to answer every question you could think of, and there were questions from the film that were answered in rare mock "documentary" shown in the first trailer of the movie. I'm willing to bet it will be on a future DVD of the film (it's already on DVD). If not they probably scraped it because it was boring. I agree that some movie require answers to almost ever question you can throw at it... but those are more science fiction type of films. Truman you have to assume that there's a reason for everything and ENJOY it.

It's a GREAT movie, and most critics loved it.

Protesilaus
03-16-2002, 11:36 PM
In Antitrust, Ryan Phillippe and Rachel Leigh Cook work for this company that's like Microsoft, except they kill people and steal their work. They team up to expose their Bill Gates-like boss. Rachel's job is to take the incriminating stuff Ryan found and make a easy to follow multimedia presentation, and Ryan's job is to hack into the systems needed to broadcast the presentation to the world. Here's the problem - Rachel's been in league with Evil Bill the whole time, but she still makes the presentation! It's not like she ever shows it to Ryan beforehand, so she could have made something that had nothing to do with the company, like a bunch of nature footage, or even have made nothing at all, and Ryan's eventual success in broadcasting it wouldn't have mattered. There's no reason for her to make a real presentation.

Diff T
03-17-2002, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by borschevsky


Well, I think the way the photos work is consistent. In BTTF 1, Marty's siblings fade out oldest to youngest, which I guess is being caused by the ripple moving forward in time to their births. So the contents of the photo are being changed, not the photo itself. So the ripple takes a little while to get to Marty's brother, who fades out of the picture, then Marty's sister, etc. In BTTF 3, the engraving of the tombstone only happens a few days after the events that are changing it, so the ripple effects should reach it very quickly.

So the photos at least are consistent, but I agree the newspapers (and that "you're fired!" FAX from 2015) seem to act differently.

The thing is though, I doubt Marty and his siblings would be born at all... or at least would heighten the possibility that another sperm reached the egg.

Every little thing you do in the past can have domino effect in the future.

Example: A kid is at the library reading a book, his eye get tired and move up, where the sun outside at that precise time is illuminating (and making more visible) off a speck of dust. The kid follows the speck of dust with his eyes, at that precise time a draft of wind makes the dust float to his left, where he sees the women he will talk to and eventually marry... but if you took the dust, sun, or wind out of the equation... he would never have met her.

So don't you think the Mother and Father's schedule will be forever altered...
Maybe different offspring... (they would most likely have the same names)?

diku
03-17-2002, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by archmichael
My favorite movie to mine plotholes is Independence Day. Let take a look at all the lessons learned.

1) Alien computers are Mac compatible.
2) Alien ships, spanning several miles in diameter and weighing an unknown number of tons, can be severely damaged by air-to-air missiles.
3) Never fire the main alien gun, because of a design flaw that will destroy the ship itself.
4) Alien numerical fighter superiority means nothing against the skill of our flyboys.
5) Alien ships once destroyed will always crash away from the population centers they were hovering over.
6) And so on...
7) and so forth...

My favorite from ID4 is:

Early in the movie, they state that the mothership is roughly 1/4 the size of the moon. The mothership then parks itself in near Earth orbit. Wouldn't the gravity generated by something that large that close to the Earth play hell with the planet? This thing was close, yet no tide changes, no earthquakes, nothing...

And the smaller ships, you would think when they crashed, they'd cause a rather large explosion...Luckily, they fall harmlessly to the ground.

Tars Tarkas
03-17-2002, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Tuckerfan
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, okay the Enterprise is the only ship in the quadrant (Which causes further problems when you think about the Voyager series since they somehow ended up in another quadrant, and then again with DS9 with its quadrant, apparently the mapping descriptions of the Federation are a little different than the ones we're using.), and it's filled with trainees. So, do they order Enterprise go check out Regula One and tell them to immediately withdraw and await re-enforcements if they encounter any hostile activity? No.


Where've you been? The Enterprise is ALWAYS the only ship in the quadrent! Star Trek TMP, Star Trek 2, Star Trek 4, there was 2 ships at earth, the Excelsior and some Oberth class ship, no ships at earth in the Next Gen episode best of both worlds, and the DS9 episode where the Admirals tried to do a coup on earth, the USS Lakota was the only ship at Earth (The Capital of the Federation, for crying out loud, and they have ONE ship at a time of arms build up!) The only time you see giant fleets was on DS9, but then most of those ships got offed and only the Defiant saved the day.

Odd, the rant seemed to lose my point, but it's in there somewhere!

Bryan Ekers
03-17-2002, 02:27 AM
I just watched Dirty Harry on PBS and despite the fact that the .44 Magnum is the most powerful handgun in the world, no-one's head actually gets blown clean off. What a gyp!

Odesio
03-17-2002, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by jmullaney
Red Dawn comes to mind. A few teenagers against the entire Russian military (which did manage to defeat the U.S. military lickety split). OK movie other than that.

I don't think that was the case. The United States military wasn't just defeated lickety split. The nation was divided in half by forces invading from Cuba and Mexico I think. After all the pilot guy didn't appear in the movie until well after the invasion.

And the Wolverines employed guerilla tactics against a vastly superior foe. And more evidence that the US military wasn't wiped out was some character, the pilot maybe, mentioning that someone thought of sending the Green Berets in to assist the Wolverines. Implausable as it all sounds I don't think it was a plot hole.

Marc

Monocracy
03-17-2002, 08:54 AM
SPOILERS BELOW OF COURSE (just look for the bold titles)

Stephen King's The Stand - The super-flu kills over 99.9% of the population, sparing only a lucky few who are completely immune to the virus. Immunity has nothing to do with genetics (this is explained better in the book) ... in fact, in both the movie and book, i don't think any 2 people survive that are closely related to one another. But, in the end, Molly Ringwald's (Frannie's) baby is born with the super-flu, but somehow overcomes it, because one of her parents was immune to the virus. The doctor even says that once babies are born with both parents being immune, the super-flu will be a thing of the past. It looks like King is subscribing to Lamarks (sp?) theory of evolution here.

Unbreakable - Sammy L. is searching for the polar opposite of himself ... the person who is "unbreakable". He does this by creating disasters which kill a few hundred, maybe a thousand or two people at a time. There are 6 billion people on this planet! The odds of him finding the one person by killing only a few thousand people is astronimically small. The fact that he actually accomplishes this with only three tries is even more bizarre.

Lamia
03-17-2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
In Dogma, at first they didn't know they were going to destroy the universe, but after they find out, Bartelby decides to go with it. He would have a clean slate when he comes out, including all intention to destroy the universe. He would then be immediatly shot dead by cops, without time to think about destroying the universe.

I haven't even seen this movie, but your explanation doesn't work. It's ridiculous to claim that he wouldn't have time to think about his plan to destroy the universe. It's not as if he had to stop and think up the plan, he already had it worked out. It would take no measureable amount of time to think about it again. In fact, he would have to be thinking about it if his next action would be to intentionally walk out into police gunfire in order to complete the plan.

Freudian Slit
03-17-2002, 01:07 PM
"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"- How did Rufus "know" that he had to go back in time and save Bill and Ted from flunking?

If they HAD flunked...Rufus and co wouldn't even know who they were, or have such a great civilization. There'd be no Wyld Stallion, etc...

If they passed, then why would Rufus need to go back in time and help them? Do you see what I mean...I guess it's kind of a paradox.

Miller
03-18-2002, 12:53 AM
Originally posted by RealityChuck
But the Nostromo is owned by a big corporation. It's obvious that corporation's owners aren't going to care about about the crew. But why in hell did they put those billions of tons of ore aboard in jeopardy? It had to be fairly valuable stuff or they wouldn't have mined it in the first place.


It's not like they'll lose the ship, either. The crew points it at Earth, then gets eaten by the alien. Fifty years later, the ship full of ore and valuable space aliens shows up. They get the cargo, the bio-weapon, and they don't have to pay the crew for overtime.


And why in God's name do they smoke aboard a spaceship? It's not like oxygen is a plentiful substance the space.

Eh. The ship probably has some manner of replenishing the O2. Or they have really good air scrubbers. Or, since they spend so much of the journey in hibernation, they've got lots of oxygen to spare.

originally posted by New and Improved Scott
For Alien, one of the major plot holes that was never touched upon in the movie (but was explaned later in novels and comics, so not everyone knows about it) is how did the aliens send out a distress beacon?

They didn't. The distress signal was sent by the unknown alien species that built and piloted the ship that had crashed on that planet.


So the ship in Alien is a Predator ship that went down, and the Aliens went wild.

No, it wasn't. We see the dessicated remains of one of the aliens, in some sort of giant gun-shaped seat, with it's chest burst open. It's clearly much larger than a Predator, maybe twenty feet tall, and has vaguely elephantine facial features.

Miller
03-18-2002, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by Zoggie
"Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure"- How did Rufus "know" that he had to go back in time and save Bill and Ted from flunking?

If they HAD flunked...Rufus and co wouldn't even know who they were, or have such a great civilization. There'd be no Wyld Stallion, etc...

If they passed, then why would Rufus need to go back in time and help them? Do you see what I mean...I guess it's kind of a paradox.

"Dudes, you future guys gotta totally remember to send us a time machine in, like, 1989, or Bill's going to get sent to military school."

"In Alaska!"

"Yeah, which is like, totally bogus."

"So you guys have to get Rufus to come back and help us pass our history final, other things are going to supremely lame in the future."

Skywatcher
03-19-2002, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Lamia
Originally posted by Jeff Olsen
The Jack in the past was distracted by hearing his future self over the radio, enabling the mother to jump him and resulting in his hand being essentially shot off. The Jack in the present had been using that hand to hold down the son. How would you feel if you suddenly lost a part of your body and have no idea how it happened?
But the thing is, Frequency made it quite clear from the beginning that changes to the timeline were retroactive. No one was aware of the different timelines except for the son. So from Jack's perspective he didn't suddenly loose a hand. He lost the hand thirty years ago.
This God-forsaken paradox is giving me a headache but I think I've sorted it out now.

1. The son is the only one aware of the different timelines.
2. The son is also the only one in the present who had contact with the past via the radio.
3. Dad doesn't die in the fire.
4. Son gaines new memories.
5. Jack-in-the-Present also has contact with the past via the radio when trying to kill the son.
6. Jack-in-the-Present is now aware of the different timelines, too.
7. Jack-in-the-Past gets shot in the hand.
8. Jack-in-the-Present suddenly loses hishand.
9. Jack-in-the-Present gains new memories, including how he lost that hand.
10. Jack-in-the-Present reacts to the new memories similar to how the son reacted.
11. Dad uses the moment to finish off Jack.

Tars Tarkas
03-19-2002, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by Lamia


I haven't even seen this movie, but your explanation doesn't work. It's ridiculous to claim that he wouldn't have time to think about his plan to destroy the universe. It's not as if he had to stop and think up the plan, he already had it worked out. It would take no measureable amount of time to think about it again. In fact, he would have to be thinking about it if his next action would be to intentionally walk out into police gunfire in order to complete the plan.

Gah! Okay, i'll try again, but i don't know enough about Catholisism (Wow!) to know if this would work. Say they go throught the gate, and all their sins are wiped. They then say "hey, don't kill us, you'll destroy the universe!" to the cops, but the cops kill them anyway. In fact, the cops would kill them no matter what they do upon exiting the church. So the cops killing them is a given and if they try to not get killed, then they did their best to prevent it and aren't technically committing mortal sins.

Or maybe they go to heaven for processing before being shipped to Hell, and that alone is enought to unmake existance. Maybe i should stop trying to explain this point, and instead focus on why did Troll 2 have no trolls in it? It had Goblins, in the town of Nilbog!!!! but no Trolls! I call that a plothole!

jk1245
03-19-2002, 12:30 PM
One that's always annoyed me since I even picked up on it as a little kid. In the first Superman, Lex explains that "even with your great speed" Superman can't get the two missiles in time. Then, when Lois dies what's he do? Zips around the planet fast enough to reverse its rotation. I'm no geographer, but it seems to me that if ol' Supe can circumnavigate the globe dozens of times per second, he can cross North America in 10-15 minutes.

Granted, it's Superman, so the whole thing is far-fetched, but at least make it consistent within its own world.

Tars Tarkas
03-19-2002, 12:50 PM
You're complaining about that and not Superman flying around the world backwards causing Earth to rotate backwards and therefore go back in time???

jk1245
03-19-2002, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
You're complaining about that and not Superman flying around the world backwards causing Earth to rotate backwards and therefore go back in time???


Well, yeah, like I said, that's pretty far-fetched (to say the least).
It's not totally inconsistent with what's just happened though.

CaptMurdock
03-19-2002, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by PatrickM
The plot hole in Silence of the Lambs that always bugged me was that the FBI does not send assign rookie agents to solely handle any cases, let alone cases involving dangerous serial killers.

But then Hannibal's terrorizing of Agent Starling wouldn't have happened.


I think the reason she got this assignment was because of her relationship with the Scott Glenn character. IIRC, he was her "mentor" and was giving her a shot based on the abilities he observed in her. I think this was explained in more detail in the book.

The whole idea of her going to see Dr. Lechter "to do this evaluation" was a long shot. Crawford wanted Lechter's insight into the Buffalo Bill case, but he knew Lechter would never cooperate willingly. He didn't even tell Starling any of this because he figured (correctly) that Lechter would have picked up any duplicity on her part and refuse to talk to her. As it was, it was only because "Multiple" Miggs splattered her with semen that got Lechter's sympathy aroused enough to give her the clue about the head in the car.

After the initial meeting, Crawford (probably refusing to bow to pressure from "upstairs") kept Starling on the case, because she had established a rapport with Dr. Lechter, something no one had ever done before. If Chilton hadn't screwed it up, they would have caught Buffalo Bill and wouldn't have Lechter on the loose.

Lamia
03-19-2002, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Tars Tarkas


Gah! Okay, i'll try again, but i don't know enough about Catholisism (Wow!) to know if this would work. Say they go throught the gate, and all their sins are wiped. They then say "hey, don't kill us, you'll destroy the universe!" to the cops, but the cops kill them anyway. In fact, the cops would kill them no matter what they do upon exiting the church. So the cops killing them is a given and if they try to not get killed, then they did their best to prevent it and aren't technically committing mortal sins.


The only way their plan could possibly work would be if, in the exact same instant that they are absolved of their past sins, they also honestly and whole-heartedly stop desiring to destroy the universe. It is the desire itself that is sinful, regardless of their actions. So they would be sinners even if they tried avoiding death. In fact, I am not sure if they could escape sin even if they really lost their desire to destroy the universe, as they knew that their death in a sinless state would lead to that destruction. So if they refused to use their last moments to sin and thus save the universe, I believe they would just find themselves guilty of a sin of omission rather than a sin of comission.

This is why I avoid Kevin Smith films -- the man tries to be clever, but he's just nto smart enough to pull it off.

Tars Tarkas
03-19-2002, 02:28 PM
Yeah, well, um, hmmm,......Not a finger!!!


::Runs away crying::

Slacker
03-19-2002, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Sealemon88
Starship Troopers...I know, it's that 'kickboxing wit a first grader' thing again, but I really question the idea of invading a bunch of obviously crap planets with infantry. No armor, no air support (Except one bombing run), no heavy weapontry.

The thing is, the bugs were launching asteroids at Earth from their home system, right? So, when our ships got to their system, <b>why didn't we launch their asteroids right back at them? They were right there in orbit!!! Why not carpet nuke the planet and be done with it?</b>

Gawd I hated this movie. I mercifully forgot a lot of details, so bear with me:

1. The ridiculously stupid battle plan mentioned above. Almost all of the bugs were land-bound, yet we send in thousands of ground troops with almost non-existant air-support. Airwolf with the A-Team on board could have won this war single-handedly.

2. The co-ed showers. Not a surprising feature in a future envisioned by Paul Verhoeven, but as long as men and women still have sex for recreational purposes, this will never happen. Notice how what's her name quickly covered herself up when someone else got her and the main character dude in the sack? (told ya I forgot the details)

3. At one point, if I remember right the main character was hurt on the field. One of the bugs pounced on him, and the camera angle made it look like he was about to get eaten. A quick cut to a scene back at base, and our hero is recovering nicely in a big vat of goo. Hooray! However, later - the main female gets a jab in the stomach from a bug - and it proves to be fatal! What, did they run out of goo?

4. Doogie Howser is the commanding officer of no man.

monster
03-19-2002, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Monocracy
SPOILERS BELOW OF COURSE (just look for the bold titles)

Stephen King's The Stand - The super-flu kills over 99.9% of the population, sparing only a lucky few who are completely immune to the virus. Immunity has nothing to do with genetics (this is explained better in the book) ... in fact, in both the movie and book, i don't think any 2 people survive that are closely related to one another. But, in the end, Molly Ringwald's (Frannie's) baby is born with the super-flu, but somehow overcomes it, because one of her parents was immune to the virus. The doctor even says that once babies are born with both parents being immune, the super-flu will be a thing of the past. It looks like King is subscribing to Lamarks (sp?) theory of evolution here.


Ok, I'm going to take a stab at this one. The way I understood it was, when the superflu was introduced, nobody was "immune". Nobody had been exposed to it before, so nobody had been able to build up immunity. Some people got it, and others didn't. The reason for the survivors' immunity to the disease was never discovered (although I believe they were the "chosen ones" to survive). And yes, even the bad people were chosen.

Anyway, Frannie's baby, when born, was exposed to the superflu and recovered because of Frannie's "immunity" (that was provided by God).

Of course, again, it is just a story, but I think that would explain it.

ElwoodCuse
03-19-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Finagle
Your average bird weighs about five ounces. (Let's not get into laden or unladen swallows here.) Even large seagulls probably don't weigh much more than ten pounds. And they've got hollow lightweight bones. So when birds invade, you put on a heavy jacket and some gloves. You go down to the basement and get some safety goggles, a helmet if you've got one, and, most importantly, a tennis racket. Then it's just clobbering time.

Finagle , the imagery of a person in said get-up swatting at seagulls with a tennis racket (cover on or off?) is downright hilarious.


Oh and in The Blues Brothers, the lead singer of the Good Ole Boys does indeed say to Jake (posing as a union rep) that he would love to stay and talk but he's very late.

I was going to mention Terminator 2, but I think that has more continuity issues than out-and-out plot holes.

And it's my understanding that Paul Verhoeven did the co-ed shower scene to "loosen up" the actors. I think the imdb will back me up on that.

Was Denise Richards in that part?

zev_steinhardt
03-19-2002, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by kaylasdad99
...but bear with me:

In Sleeping Beauty, Princess Aurora (aka Briar Rose) is lured up into the tower by Maleficent's will-o'-the-wisp. Then she sees the spinning wheel. Maleficent's voice says "Touch the spindle. Touch it!" And then Aurora touches the spindle, and falls asleep, yadda, yadda, you know the drill.

But since King Stefan had burned all of the spinning wheels in the kingdom when Aurora was a tiny baby, this had to be the first spinniing wheel she'd ever seen. So how did she know what part was the spindle?

Answer:

King Stefan did have all the spinning wheels in the palace burned. However, after that, the fairies decided to raise Aurora in the forest by themselves without magic. As such, they would have to have the capacity to make clothing in the old-fashioned way.

Malificent's curse said that she would prick her finger on her 16th birthday. Until then, she was safe. I therefore submit to you that the faries had a spinning wheel around the cottage and got rid of it shortly before her 16th birthday.

Alternatively, she could have seen a picture of one in a book.

Zev Steinhardt

Sofa King
03-19-2002, 05:54 PM
What, nobody remembers Jaws: The Revenge?

I hear that the city of Baltimore is considering purchasing a videotape the film and burying it in the Bay instead of refurbishing the current harbor tunnel. Truck traffic should increase dramatically as a result.

You've got psychic, vengeful, supersonic sharks that explode when prodded with a stick (perhaps it's a cyborg shark--we certainly get to see the machinery that drives it often enough). You've got family members that die and are never spoken of again. Hell, you've got a family that decides it's a good idea to escape the aforementioned super-shark by vacationing in the f***ing Bahamas, rather than someplace less shark-friendly, like Kansas. Not that it would have mattered, because the damned thing probably would have hidden in someone's outhouse had they gone to Kansas.

You've even got Mario van Peebles doing an impression of Schroedinger's Cat. In some versions he dies after being gnawed on and dragged into the deep, in other versions he lives--after being gnawed on and dragged into the deep.

To watch that film without being personally offended, one must not merely suspend disbelief. Disbelief must be put on half rations in a darkened cell the size of a walk-in closet. It still pisses me off.

lenin
04-12-2002, 07:26 PM
2 things.

1. Presumably, since the whole idea of Catholicism WOW! is to make the church look less strict, the mere thought of destroying the universe is no longer grounds for mortal sinnery. Furthermore, since all sins are absolved, that could me that all sinful thoughts are poofed away too, so they have no idea what they're doing once they pass through. Don't hate Kevin Smith just because you like nitpicking.

2. One could argue that in Double Jeopardy, that since the woman served a prison sentence for murder(that she can easily appeal and get aquitted for before being sentenced for the next one), and in most counties serving time without being found guilty for a crime entitles you to time credit towards your sentence, she would be found guilty of murder but serve 0 days. The main fault with the whole movie is: She was charged with 2nd degree murder in Washington. She committed 1st degree murder in New Orleans. I mean, what the fuck were they smoking?

JThunder
04-12-2002, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Bryan Ekers
And I'm pretty jet fuel does not behave like Yosemite Sam's gunpowder in that you coud leave a trail, light one end, and have flames shoot to the other end.
It would not ignite at all -- at least, not if you use a cigarette lighter. It's jet fuel, not gasoline.

HPL
04-13-2002, 01:40 AM
Originally posted by rjung
I'd just like to comment that I thought the movie Deep Impact was one big gaping plot hole. The annoying part was watch all the human characters sidestep the solutions; by the end of the movie, I was rooting for the asteroid to wipe out the Planet of the Morons.


What was the Large Gaping plot hole you mention?

Actually, I was hoping the astriod would hit too, but for the different reason that Hollywood never has the guts to make any super bad endings.

HPL
04-13-2002, 01:43 AM
My Pick:

Alien 3.

The entire movie is based off of a plothole large enough to Drive the Nostromo though.

Namely: How did the Alien eggs get on the Sulaco before they left LV-426 in ALIENS? The Alien Queen didn't carry them up there and she doesn't look like she could lay eggs with her Huge Sac.

HPL
04-13-2002, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by CalMeacham
I agree about "Alien". That movie bothered me enormously -- the biggest cliche of monster flicks is used repeatedly -- "There's a monster loose on this ship. All of us are going over here. YOU go over there, where it's dark." They used it three times!


I normally get upset by this kind of idiocy in movies, but in ALIEN, they had decent reasons for the most part.

1. When Brett goes off and gets killed, he's looking for the cat (so the cat won't set off the motion sensor again). He probably isn't worried because the last time they saw the Alien, it was pretty damn small. They were mainly concerned with catching it, not killing it. They had no idea it had grown and was so deadly until after it kills Brett.

2. When they find out it has grown, They figure it has been using the air vents to move around. They seal those off and decide to flush it out into the airlock and then into space with the flamers. The captain insists on going in himself. If anything, this is the biggest thing I have issues with(besides the captain going off the ship in the first place into a potentially lethal enviroment) in the film. Then, of course, he gets killed when it sneaks up behind him.

3. The final time they seperate. One goes to turn off the cooling units for the engine/reactor to make the ship blow, while the others go to get coolant for the shuttle's Life support system so they can survive until they get picked up. Perhaps they figured it was better to seperate since the thing couldn't be two places at once and they weren't even sure it could be killed with the flamers.


Originally posted by CalMeacham
They build a "monster detector" to locate the beast. They find it, then they can't tell the captain which way to go to avoid it! Then they never use the thing again!
[/B]

Actually, they do have a general idea, but the woman operating it begins panicing, which doesn't help matters at all. And remember, they were trying to find it, not avoid it. They wanted to flush it out the air lock.

You've got a point about them never using the thing again, though.

Originally posted by CalMeacham
And surprise, one crew member turns out to be a robot! That came totally out of left field -- they never even TOLD us they had robots in this future.
[/B]

The subject of andriods never came up until they "killed" ash. They didn't even know they had on the ship, so why would they need to mention it? Does it make the character less credible because he's suddenly a robot and not a human being as you suspected? Does it alter the fact he's lying to everyone from the start and was planted to protect the alien?

The andriod is not a plothole.

If you want a plothole, I've got one for you. Where the hell did the Alien get the energy to grow that big in so short a time?

HPL
04-13-2002, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by RealityChuck
Alien is filled with stupidities and plot holes. Never mind no one thinks of the obvious solution to their problem or tries to figure out which direction the alien is coming from when he attack or won't bother to fire a weapon at him. Maybe they are just dumb as rocks.


What's the obvious solution you allude to? They tried catching it (until they realized it had grown), killing it (Until Dallas was killed), and then finally decide to blow up the ship and leave the alien behind.

All Brett had when he died was a cattle prod. Somehow I doubt that would have stopped it even if it hadn't caught him by surprise from behind.

Dallas was trying to escape and was taken by surprise from behind. He didn't have time to shoot it. The person reading the motion tracker from outside was panicing and not helping him know where it was coming from.

Lambert and Parker were occupied when it snuck up behind them. It approachs Lambert, who freezes up with the Deer in the Headlights look, and Parker doesn't want to shoot for feel of killing her by mistake (Remember him telling her to get out of the way?). He tries to rush it(stupid, I know) but it knocks him down and finishes both of them(I don't think she had a weapon).

When Ripley saw it........I don't know with the deal with that is. Perhaps she didn't believe it could be killed?(Ash said it couldn't be, and he knew more then she did, so she may have believed it). She was just scared too much to do anything but run? She was afraid of killing her cat as well who was right next to the Alien?

Originally posted by RealityChuck
But the Nostromo is owned by a big corporation. It's obvious that corporation's owners aren't going to care about about the crew. But why in hell did they put those billions of tons of ore aboard in jeopardy? It had to be fairly valuable stuff or they wouldn't have mined it in the first place.

[/B]

I somehow doubted they planned for the ship to get blown up. They probably just expected to lose the crew and when it arrived back at Earth or a Search and Rescue team found it, they could then figure out some way to catch it and (from their point of view) develop it as a biological weapon.

And then there was Special Order 937 which read:

Retrieve Lifeform.
All other priorties secondary.
Crew Expendable.

I would take it that the Cargo of the Nostromo would fall under the 2nd line.

Originally posted by RealityChuck
And why in God's name do they smoke aboard a spaceship? It's not like oxygen is a plentiful substance the space.
[/B]

I assume they have a little invention called Oxygen Generators and Atmospheric filters. That and it seems like they would spend 95% of any particular voyage in hypersleep, so I doubt smoking is really gonna be a problem for so short a time.

Kaitlyn
04-13-2002, 03:01 AM
Originally posted by jk1245
One that's always annoyed me since I even picked up on it as a little kid. In the first Superman, Lex explains that "even with your great speed" Superman can't get the two missiles in time. Then, when Lois dies what's he do? Zips around the planet fast enough to reverse its rotation. I'm no geographer, but it seems to me that if ol' Supe can circumnavigate the globe dozens of times per second, he can cross North America in 10-15 minutes.

Granted, it's Superman, so the whole thing is far-fetched, but at least make it consistent within its own world.

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
You're complaining about that and not Superman flying around the world backwards causing Earth to rotate backwards and therefore go back in time???

Originally posted by jk1245
Well, yeah, like I said, that's pretty far-fetched (to say the least).
It's not totally inconsistent with what's just happened though.

Superman doesn't cause the Earth to rotate backwards. By flying fast enough, he breaks the time barrier, and he travels backwards in time. While he is traveling backwards we see the Earth seeming to turn backwards because that's how it would look to someone for whom time had been reversed.

And it doesn't contradict the speed needed to reach the missles, either. Supes has to catch the missles while in the atmosphere, which creates drag that limits his velocity. Later, he leaves the atmosphere. With no force (atmospheric drag) to limit his acceleration (except relativistic limitations, which obviously are not part of the physics of this universe) he can continue to accelerate to the speed of time unimpeded.

IMO, a plot hole is an inconsistency in the internal logic of the film. A flawed or implausible premise is not a plot hole unless said premise is dealt with inconsistently.

For example, in Independance Day, the computer virus written on the iMac is listed as a plot hole. It isn't. The aliens tied their computers into Earth's early in the movie so that they could use the satellite system to coordinate the attacks. Jeff G. wouldn't have to develop a way to interface the software because the aliens had already done it for him. A deeply flawed premise, yes (the aliens use the earth satellites to get around line of sight transmission problems; they have plenty of ships to form a network that would render this unnecessary), a plot hole, no.

Also, the never noticing not being sick or injured isn't a plot hole in Unbreakable--if it's a problem (IMO, it isn't really; never having been sick or injured would just be just normal life for Willis; people tend not to notice the ordinary) it is another example of a flawed premise.

On the other hand, the ending of Frequency is a plot hole, because it contradicts the rules by which timeline changes work set up earlier in the movie.

haardvark
04-13-2002, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Monocracy

Unbreakable - Sammy L. is searching for the polar opposite of himself ... the person who is "unbreakable". He does this by creating disasters which kill a few hundred, maybe a thousand or two people at a time. There are 6 billion people on this planet! The odds of him finding the one person by killing only a few thousand people is astronimically small. The fact that he actually accomplishes this with only three tries is even more bizarre. [/B]

here's my view on this fwiw. Once we accept the premise that a single person exists who has been uninjured for 40 years and never noticed (or was in serious denial, viz. the car accident scene) then perhaps it becomes possible that there is a subset of folks like this scattered all over the world. Given the pop density of large urban centres in the US it's not totallly out to lunch that there might be more than one around. so, the odds of finding a single bruce willis type are still very very small , but still better than if Bruce were the ONLY one.

Like SLJ says, it's a spectrum. After all, there is probably more than one person on earth with osteogenesis imperfecta, right? (again, setting aside the notion that the existence of a crippling disease IMPLIES the existence of invulnerability, which looks a bit dopey when held up to the light)

I still thought it was a pretty good film if ponderously SLOW in places. The part that I could not shake loose from my head was, how could he avoid finding out nasty truths about, e.g. his wife or his son (spanking the monkey to the Sears catalog) or his co-workers. How could he tune out the low level noise of the really petty stuff? No-one is a perfect innocent....I would think that the number of incoming signals would snap him right down the middle.

Unless of course there is some threshold "value" of crime below which he gets no vibe. But is this based on his own morality? What if the setting got screwed up so that he only got the vibe from, say, committers of genocide? So standing near for example Milosevic or Mugabe would give him a flash.... It's a dumb example but hopefully you see the point I am trying to illustrate.

ah, whatever, it's just a movie.:rolleyes:

Lamia
04-13-2002, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by lenin
Presumably, since the whole idea of Catholicism WOW! is to make the church look less strict, the mere thought of destroying the universe is no longer grounds for mortal sinnery.


Perhaps, but even if this were the case then intentionally acting to destroy the universe would surely still be a sin.


Furthermore, since all sins are absolved, that could me that all sinful thoughts are poofed away too, so they have no idea what they're doing once they pass through.

No it couldn't. Absolution is not amnesia.

I haven't seen the movie so it's possible that Kevin Smith really does provide a decent explanation for his apparent mangling of Catholic theology, but if so I'm surprised that no one here has managed to say what it was.

Purd Werfect
04-13-2002, 08:38 PM
In regards to The Matrix, why didn't they just use cows or some other less intelligent, and hence, easier to control creatures for energy rather than humans?

Well, logically it would just make for a crappy movie, though I would be interested in seeing cows learning to fly helicopters whilst wearing high-fashion clothes and shades. (Morpheus - "I can't answer the cell phone! Damn my lack of opposable thumbs!")

But as far as covering the hole in the story, remember the amount of religious overtones used in the story. Would the AI destroy the creator? Given the chance, would it be more attractive to enslave God rather than destroy God? Think of the ego boost inherent in having God as servant.

Tixenfleaz
04-14-2002, 11:06 PM
The original King Kong is easily one of the finest movies ever made, but one of my friends brought up a plothole that's bugged me ever since.

Ok, you've got a small tribe of natives living on an island that is infested with prehistoric monsters. So the natives build a big ass fence. And this is no simple spite fence. It's an impressive feat of engineering. Obviously, these natives are pretty smart guys.

So why did they build a big ass door in the big ass wall???!!! It's not like they're gonna invite Kong in for the holidays! You ever see a cop kick in a wall? No! They go for the door!!! Which is what Kong does! All you need is one tiny door! Hell, make 'em French doors if you wanna show off!

And why not simply take your engineering skills and build a big ass boat and leave??? Do you really wanna raise your kids on a place called Skull Island? You'd be better off on Molokai with the lepers!

But, other than that, I adore this film.

Bryan Ekers
04-14-2002, 11:11 PM
From The Simpsons;

Karl: Hey, I heard we're goin' to Ape Island.
Lenny: Yeah, to capture a giant ape.
Karl: I wish we were going to Candy Apple Island.
Charlie: Candy Apple Island? What do they got there?
Karl: Apes. But they're not so big.

Sam Stone
04-14-2002, 11:34 PM
In Die Hard 2, the whole plot depends on there being so much snow at that precise time that aircraft would have to be IFR, and that the snowstorm was so bad that it would cover all alternates. Yet it was planned weeks in advance.

As someone else mentioned, every aircraft on the ground plus half the private pilots in the airport would have had a radio that could talk to the airplanes.

A large passenger jet has enough fuel to divert to Florida from Washington Dulles. Once there was even a hint of terrorism at that airport, every jet would have broken off and gone elsewhere.

And this is a classic 'plot hole' - in one scene, a reporter on the scene looks up in the sky and says, "I can see the jets circling overhead." Uh, hello? If you can see them, they can see the ground...

Badtz Maru
04-15-2002, 12:03 AM
Originally posted by El_Kabong
You're thinking of Shallow Grave, 1994, Dir: Danny Boyle. Sorry, don't have a clever answer as to why they didn't just turn the body over to the authorities and hang on to the dosh.

I figured they were afraid that someone would come looking for the money if they knew what happened to the guy.

nightshadea
04-15-2002, 01:13 AM
I think they used that effect in the movie way too much

By the third time they do it your like" what? again" ?

Max Carnage
04-15-2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Number Six






Superman doesn't cause the Earth to rotate backwards. By flying fast enough, he breaks the time barrier, and he travels backwards in time. While he is traveling backwards we see the Earth seeming to turn backwards because that's how it would look to someone for whom time had been reversed.

And it doesn't contradict the speed needed to reach the missles, either. Supes has to catch the missles while in the atmosphere, which creates drag that limits his velocity. Later, he leaves the atmosphere. With no force (atmospheric drag) to limit his acceleration (except relativistic limitations, which obviously are not part of the physics of this universe) he can continue to accelerate to the speed of time unimpeded.



"The speed of time"? Exactly how fast is that? One hour per hour? Or faster...one year per year?

astorian
04-15-2002, 03:42 PM
Virtually every John Grisham-based movie has the same basic plot hole, but I'll stick to one, "The Client," because it annoyed me so much.

The movie ends with the kid testifying against the Mob, and getting put into protective custody... whcih is EXACTLY the same deal he could have gotten from the authorities in the first 10 minutes of the movie, if he'd just told the truth right away!

Of course, if you just do the right thing immediately, there's no movie, is there?

Shodan
04-15-2002, 08:57 PM
OK, The Terminator.

Arnold as the killer cyborg from the future. He can't bring a ray gun with him, but his own high tech endo-skeleton is fine. Reese says "It has to do with the field generated by a living body." But Arnold has no trouble cutting out his own eye with an Exacto knife.

So why piss around with the crude weapons of our day? Why not just implant a ray gun in his belly, let him go to the past, and then cut out the ray gun and zap hell out of John Connor?

Not to mention sometimes getting blasted by a shotgun makes the Terminator blank out for a few seconds (the scene in the nightclub where Reese and Sarah Connor hook up), and sometimes he can get blasted all over and not blink an eye.

Regards,
Shodan

JThunder
04-15-2002, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by astorian
Virtually every John Grisham-based movie has the same basic plot hole, but I'll stick to one, "The Client," because it annoyed me so much.

The movie ends with the kid testifying against the Mob, and getting put into protective custody... whcih is EXACTLY the same deal he could have gotten from the authorities in the first 10 minutes of the movie, if he'd just told the truth right away!
How is that a plothole? Sounds to me like it was just a foolish move on the kid's part. People do foolish things all the time.

Mandos
04-15-2002, 09:42 PM
1. How did the One escape, even once he had broken free of the Matrix? After all, he would be so physically weak, that he would probably either have died on his own or been killed by the machines by the time that he could figure out a way to get back in and free someone.
2. What's stopping the machines from monitoring the very thoughts of the humans inside the Matrix? If the machines have such advanced control over the human mind, by now they should be able to interpret it. To me, it would seem that any humans planning anything against the machines could be easily detected based on their thoughts.
3. What's stopping the machines from hacking the access codes to Zion themselves?
4. Why can't Agents manipulate the Matrix? Couldn't they at least signal to whatever is controlling it to trap humans behind an instantly appearing brick wall or something of that sort?
5. Why didn't the machines isolate the humans in their own virtual reality realms, consisting of simply a void, with nothing but some sort of physical sustenance. If this were the case, humans would probably die of shock if ever they were free, nor could they ever comprehend a description of an outside world, they would have no frame of reference.

-That's all I can think of for the time being.

carlotta
04-15-2002, 11:56 PM
Pitch Black

This movie drove me so crazy, I've been driving other people crazy telling them about how stupid it is.

A planet that has no night for 23 years on end somehow manages to evolve countless ravening creatures that only come out when it's dark????


But what really got me ranting:

You and about 10 other people are shipwrecked on a planet with a convicted remorseless psychopathic murderer. You don't know how long you will be marooned, possibly for the rest of your lives. Resources are scarce. You decide not to execute the psycho--possible, just possible. Polls of my family and friends come down on the "execute the bastard" side of the scenario, but there are a squeamish few.


But you, the marooned unfortunates, decide not only to let him live, but to release him from his restraints and go free, because why???

I think the decision was actually made unilaterally by one guy, but that guy was the bounty hunter. How did it make sense for him to let him go?

I think I'm gonna post this hypothetical situation to Great Debates.

Kaitlyn
04-16-2002, 12:15 AM
"The speed of time"? Exactly how fast is that? One hour per hour? Or faster...one year per year?

It is well established in the DC Universe that if one travels at a high enough velocity in the correct direction, one can travel through time (counter-clockwise for backwards, clockwise for forwards). This is what I am referring to as "the speed of time"--fast enough to break the time barrier (think Star Trek 4; it's the same basic principle, except Supes don't need to slingshot around no star).

Darwin's Finch
04-16-2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by carlotta
But you, the marooned unfortunates, decide not only to let him live, but to release him from his restraints and go free, because why???

I think the decision was actually made unilaterally by one guy, but that guy was the bounty hunter. How did it make sense for him to let him go?

Because the bounty hunter was a jerk. He thought he could handle Riddick if he let him go, and he didn't really care what happened to everyone else (heck, if you've got limited resources, it pays to get rid of the competition). If you'll recall, he even tries to strike up a deal with Riddick to kill one of the group to act as a diversion for the critters.

av8rmike
04-16-2002, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Number Six
"the speed of time"--fast enough to break the time barrier (think Star Trek 4; it's the same basic principle, except Supes don't need to slingshot around no star).

While we're on Star Trek IV, nitpicker Phil Farrand makes this observation, which I'll repost here: Why does travelling around the sun one way make you go forward in time, and the other way make you go backwards?

In addition, Star Trek II, my own musings: The Enterprise fled from Regula at impulse power to the Mutara Nebula. Do nebulae form inside planetary systems? And once the Genesis device was detonated, did it somehow transform the nebula into a planet, or did the wave extend all the way out the Regula planet?

Enderw24
04-16-2002, 10:58 AM
Wow. Other people have heard of Phil Farrand. Cool.

In Superman I'd be willing to accept that he could travel around the Earth 7+ times per second and go backwards in time. What gets me is that he never actually CHANGED anything. He just went backwards and then forwards again. Cool, superboy, you just wanted to see Lois bite it again?

The Client, the point of it was that he knew where the body was. If he told that, he wouldn't need to testify. They find the body, end of story. He needed protection BEFORE he testifies because he's given up his leverage if he tries to negotiate afterwards.

Morbo
04-16-2002, 04:10 PM
Raiders of the Lost Ark. I always considered this a rather large plot hole: Nazis board that ship to take the Ark back. They can't find Indy, and as they leave, a crewman finds him (without looking in that direction, but nevermind) climbing aboard the Nazi sub. He salutes, the theme music proudly plays, and he goes and hides by the gun mount. Then they superimpose some map footage of this sub with its secret cargo traveling all the way to a hidden island. Can someone tell me why that sub never submerged while traveling all that way in wartime with its secret cargo? Don't tell me it did, and that Indy was able to open a hatch, climb inside and hide w/o getting caught. Besides, when it approaches the island it's on the surface, and Indy jumps off to go hide.

God melting faces, I gots no problems, but that sub thing was outrageous. :)

Mighty Maximino
04-16-2002, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Dooku
Can someone tell me why that sub never submerged while traveling all that way in wartime with its secret cargo? Don't tell me it did, and that Indy was able to open a hatch, climb inside and hide w/o getting caught. Besides, when it approaches the island it's on the surface, and Indy jumps off to go hide.Well, it wasn't wartime. It was sometime in the late 30s, but before the wars began. U-boats could go much faster on the surface than they could submerged; even during the war they typically only submerged when they were attacking or under attack. They could also only submerge for limited times, because their batteries would run out, and running the diesel engine while submerged would make the U-boat run out of oxygen. (The Germans did solve that problem eventually, but not until much later.) So it's entirely reasonable that they ran on the surface the whole way!

Koffing
04-16-2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by av8rmike


While we're on Star Trek IV, nitpicker Phil Farrand makes this observation, which I'll repost here: Why does travelling around the sun one way make you go forward in time, and the other way make you go backwards?
Well, there is an asymmetry there in that the sun is rotating. I'm sure that has something to do with it. Obviously, there's no real scientific theory involved, but it's not really a loophole.

In addition, Star Trek II, my own musings: The Enterprise fled from Regula at impulse power to the Mutara Nebula. Do nebulae form inside planetary systems? And once the Genesis device was detonated, did it somehow transform the nebula into a planet, or did the wave extend all the way out the Regula planet?
No real reason why it couldn't.

Morbo
04-16-2002, 05:59 PM
Well, it wasn't wartime. It was sometime in the late 30s, but before the wars began. U-boats could go much faster on the surface than they could submerged; even during the war they typically only submerged when they were attacking or under attack. They could also only submerge for limited times, because their batteries would run out, and running the diesel engine while submerged would make the U-boat run out of oxygen. (The Germans did solve that problem eventually, but not until much later.) So it's entirely reasonable that they ran on the surface the whole way!

Meh. I suppose it's reasonable, but had he found a way inside the sub logically, you know they would have shown the nifty footage of a sub going under the water.

Tars Tarkas
04-16-2002, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by Mandos
2. What's stopping the machines from monitoring the very thoughts of the humans inside the Matrix? If the machines have such advanced control over the human mind, by now they should be able to interpret it. To me, it would seem that any humans planning anything against the machines could be easily detected based on their thoughts.

Well, MY computer can't even exit Battlenet properly, to expect computers to moniter billions of humans brains with all the complexity that human brains offer, someone is gonna slip through the cracks. Of course, like you said, that someone will the die because he is too weak physically, (unless he's busted out by someone, say the A-Team!!)

Dante
04-16-2002, 07:09 PM
I always wondered why they didn't set the level of technology in the world of The Matrix to that of say, the Middle Ages.

"For sooth, thou art The One! Answer yon ringing tree stump."

Harvey The Heavy
04-19-2002, 06:11 AM
Another Star Wars/Yavin one: Why does the Millenium Falcon go to the rebel base if they know they are being tracked? Can't they go somewhere and switch ships to throw the empire off their trail? I'm sure Han would have been glad to get everyone out of his hair and could have called in a favor from someone.

funkynige
04-19-2002, 07:48 AM
Has no-one mentioned in The Matrix how the human who's working with the agents, gets into the matrix to organise his reward without anyone on the ship helping out? It seems that every time someone wants to go in, someone else has to push the buttons while the person going in is strapped down.

Silentgoldfish
04-19-2002, 08:31 AM
Okay the plothole from Dogma is piss easy to explain: Bartleby flips out. He basically decides, screw everyone, existance isn't fair, I'm gonna end it. That's why he has that big rant at Loki and then starts killing everyone at the church.

He's not trying to get back to heaven, he's sided with Azrael.

detop
04-19-2002, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by MGibson
I don't think that was the case. The United States military wasn't just defeated lickety split. The nation was divided in half by forces invading from Cuba and Mexico I think. After all the pilot guy didn't appear in the movie until well after the invasion.

About Red Dawn, there is a plot hole in the movie. The pilot mentioned that North America was invaded from the South and from the North, that the Soviets sent 3 Army Groups through Alaska. Now let's look at the plausability of this feat.

A division equals more or less 10 000 men. A corps equals 3 divisions + support troops (let's say another 10 000 to keep the maths simple), so we're up to 40 000 men. 3 corps equal an Army (120 000 men + support troops, let's say an even 150k in toto). 3 Armies equal an Army Group (450k + support troops, let's assign a them 500k in total). So 3 Army Groups would be about 1.5 to 2 millions men.

Now they want us to believe that you can mount a successful (undetected !) invasion of Alaska in October. Are they mad ? Where's the infrastructure to support these troops ? Do they think that the build-up in Kamchatka would have been undetected (saying nothing about building up the infrastructure to bring and support that many units up there) ? And they were able to pull a blitzkrieg through the Alaskan mountains and the Rockies, so as to be stopped at the Mississippi ?

smiling bandit
04-19-2002, 11:37 AM
SW

1) They can't jump to hyperspace near a strong gravity well - their own notwithstanding.

2) ight have done so, but they most likely never considered it. They didn't exactly expect to get blown up - and they most likely didn't know the rebels had the plans inside R2D2.

3) They do have backup hyperspace engines, but these are very slow. Regardless, they may well have taken months to cross the distance. Lucas naver put down the time. Who knows how long Luka was on Dagohbah?

rjung
04-19-2002, 02:40 PM
Not really a big one, but this nags at me, because I'm such a fan of the movie.

In Toy Story 2, Woody the cowboy doll gets toynapped by Al; this crime occurs by having Al break into a locked moneybox and running away before he could get caught. So assuming Andy's mom has a perfectly fine brain, why does she not act incredibly surprised when Woody is found safe and sound back in her son's bedroom by the end of the movie?

(There's also the question of why neither Andy nor his mom question where the two new toys -- Jessie and Bullseye -- come from, but that's not as big as the one above.)

audit1
04-19-2002, 08:05 PM
Speaking of TOY STORY 2, Al has the largest collection of Woody's Roundup Collectibles in the world, but he is missing one piece. and that is Woody himself? Usally the lead character is the one most likly to be found.

Jonathan Chance
04-19-2002, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by Dooku
Raiders of the Lost Ark. I always considered this a rather large plot hole: Nazis board that ship to take the Ark back. They can't find Indy, and as they leave, a crewman finds him (without looking in that direction, but nevermind) climbing aboard the Nazi sub. He salutes, the theme music proudly plays, and he goes and hides by the gun mount. Then they superimpose some map footage of this sub with its secret cargo traveling all the way to a hidden island. Can someone tell me why that sub never submerged while traveling all that way in wartime with its secret cargo? Don't tell me it did, and that Indy was able to open a hatch, climb inside and hide w/o getting caught. Besides, when it approaches the island it's on the surface, and Indy jumps off to go hide.

God melting faces, I gots no problems, but that sub thing was outrageous. :)

At last! I can help.

If you look at the Marvel Comics Official Movie Adaptation (which was done from the original script)(yes, I'm an old geek) you'd see that the sub did submerge. But Indy tied himself to the periscope with his whip. Handy things, those whips, eh?

Just don't ask me why the sub traversed the Med with its periscope up the entire way. Maybe they were looking for the white whale or something.

Kaitlyn
04-20-2002, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by Enderw24

In Superman I'd be willing to accept that he could travel around the Earth 7+ times per second and go backwards in time. What gets me is that he never actually CHANGED anything. He just went backwards and then forwards again. Cool, superboy, you just wanted to see Lois bite it again?

He does change something. Though it isn't shown on-screen, he obviously stopped the missle going towards California. In the original time-line, Lois's car won't start, and subsequently falls into a rift opened by the earthquake started by the missle. After Supes goes back in time, we see Lois again trying to start her car with a dead battery (ie, at the same point in time). This time, there is no earthquake, Superman arrives, and Lois bitches at him. Obviously, Superman must have stopped the second missle before going to check on Lois, thus preventing the accident which would have killed her. This does create a time travel paradox, though, but those are inherent to time travel stories, so I consider them to generally be a seperate category to plot holes.

JohnT
04-20-2002, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Monocracy
SPOILERS BELOW OF COURSE (just look for the bold titles)

Stephen King's The Stand - The super-flu kills over 99.9% of the population, sparing only a lucky few who are completely immune to the virus. Immunity has nothing to do with genetics (this is explained better in the book) ... in fact, in both the movie and book, i don't think any 2 people survive that are closely related to one another. But, in the end, Molly Ringwald's (Frannie's) baby is born with the super-flu, but somehow overcomes it, because one of her parents was immune to the virus. The doctor even says that once babies are born with both parents being immune, the super-flu will be a thing of the past. It looks like King is subscribing to Lamarks (sp?) theory of evolution here.


What killed me about The Stand (other than the fool actress who destroyed the character of Nadine Cross) was after the superflu. Stu, Fran, Mother Abagail and the rest are (memory is a bit fuzzy here) on a hill overlooking an empty Boulder. Some words are spoken to the tune of "you and your dreams led us here, Mother Abagail" and, all of a sudden, a freakin' parade of thousands of people start to pour into town like it's the opening of the Oklahoma border.

What? Did all these people, in ones and twos and small groups, from all across the country, happen to descend upon Boulder at that exact instant?

Was there a ribbon blocking the road into Boulder keeping the people out as they waited for Mother Abagail to cut it in an official opening day ceremony?

You think you're going to walk/bike ride from, say Daytona Beach FL to Boulder CO, and then sit outside the city for days until Stu Redman shows up?

Oh, and about the flu: it had served Gods purpose, there was no more need for it to kill people. So it didn't. :p

HPL
04-20-2002, 01:44 AM
Originally posted by Mighty Maximino
Well, it wasn't wartime. It was sometime in the late 30s, but before the wars began.


True, but it had just raided a merchant ship. If nothing else that makes the U-Boat a pirate vessal.


Originally posted by Mighty Maximino

U-boats could go much faster on the surface than they could submerged; even during the war they typically only submerged when they were attacking or under attack. They could also only submerge for limited times, because their batteries would run out, and running the diesel engine while submerged would make the U-boat run out of oxygen. (The Germans did solve that problem eventually, but not until much later.) So it's entirely reasonable that they ran on the surface the whole way! [/B]

Three problems with that.

1. If they weren't going for stealth, why use a U-boat at all? Those thing aren't exactly built for cargo transporting, and they'd probably have to run on a skeleton crew just to fit all those troops abroad (somehow I doubt they issue MP-38/MP-40's to sailors on a sub).

2. During the intervening scene, when the map overlays the action on the sub, it sure looks like the they were submerging by the way the sailor were turning those wheels on the bridge.

3. I would think that if they weren't gonna submerge, they have a least one lookout on the deck at all times. Das Boot shows four at any given time.

I've got an even better plot hole.

How did the germans manage to build that U-boat pen in the Agean by 1936 without anyone knowing? I would think the Royal Navy would be quite interested in something like that.

easy e
04-20-2002, 02:17 AM
Originally posted by Jonathan Chance


At last! I can help.

If you look at the Marvel Comics Official Movie Adaptation (which was done from the original script)(yes, I'm an old geek) you'd see that the sub did submerge. But Indy tied himself to the periscope with his whip. Handy things, those whips, eh?

Just don't ask me why the sub traversed the Med with its periscope up the entire way. Maybe they were looking for the white whale or something.

Yeah, I've seen this. I found it in one of my dad's boxes, with his Penthouse magazines! :eek:* It was before I had seen Raiders as a teenager (the time before that was when I was a kid and the melting faces really freaked me out). So the next time I saw the movie, I was expecting that part and got shafted!

no teenager wants to find her father's porn magazines in the really big closet next to her converted-attic-bedroom that the rest of the family uses for extra storage space

Max Harvey
04-20-2002, 02:44 AM
Spoilers for CHANGING LANES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just saw this tonight, it's a hell of a movie but a couple of things really bugged me. When Ben Affleck calls Samuel Jackson to tell him he ruined his credit, why didn't Jackson just call the cops and play them the message? He's already got Affleck for leaving the scene of an accident, and at that point Jackson had not broken the law himself so he had nothing to hold back from the cops. Of course later, when Jackson is arrested, he couldn't go to the police then or he'd get busted for attempted murder.

And at the accident, if Jackson was in such a hurry, why didn't he agree to just take the blank check instead of "doing the right thing?" If they had waited for the police and filed reports, Jackson would have been at least an hour late to court, rather than just 20 minutes.

Still a great movie, though.

carlotta
04-20-2002, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by rjung
Not really a big one, but this nags at me, because I'm such a fan of the movie.

In Toy Story 2, Woody the cowboy doll gets toynapped by Al; this crime occurs by having Al break into a locked moneybox and running away before he could get caught. So assuming Andy's mom has a perfectly fine brain, why does she not act incredibly surprised when Woody is found safe and sound back in her son's bedroom by the end of the movie?

(There's also the question of why neither Andy nor his mom question where the two new toys -- Jessie and Bullseye -- come from, but that's not as big as the one above.)

There is no mystery here. Your flawed assumption is that Andy's mom has a perfectly fine brain. She clearly has "Mommy Brain" She is apparently a single working mom with two kids. She has exactly zero brain space to spare wondering where toys go or where they come from. In our house toys are always disappearing from supposedly secure locations and frequently toys arrive with no clue as to their origin. I am grateful to the Toy Story movies for finally explaining such events (and for holding up after 2000 viewings!).

ScriptAnalyst
04-20-2002, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Number Six


He does change something. Though it isn't shown on-screen, he obviously stopped the missle going towards California. In the original time-line, Lois's car won't start, and subsequently falls into a rift opened by the earthquake started by the missle. After Supes goes back in time, we see Lois again trying to start her car with a dead battery (ie, at the same point in time). This time, there is no earthquake, Superman arrives, and Lois bitches at him. Obviously, Superman must have stopped the second missle before going to check on Lois, thus preventing the accident which would have killed her. This does create a time travel paradox, though, but those are inherent to time travel stories, so I consider them to generally be a seperate category to plot holes.

This is giving the movie an awful lot of credit for something the filmmakers didn't bother to show. As far as what you actually see on screen, Superman does absolutely nothing to prevent the earthquake. He just goes back in time to before the earthquake happened, then shows up beside the car with Lois in it, and this time (for no reason shown in the film) the earthquake does not happen. Apparently, the audience is supposed to be so happy to see Lois alive again that they forget about the earthquake that killed her.

If you're going to argue that, the earthquake didn't happen and, therefore, Superman must have stopped the missile that caused it (even if we didn't see that happen), then you might as well say that no film ever had any plot hole. In each and every case, obviously something happened that would have explained the apparent gap; just because the film didn't show it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

steve biodrowski
www.thescriptanalyst.com

Tars Tarkas
04-20-2002, 06:58 PM
I think when the superman went back in time by making the Earth spin backwards (or appearing to spin backwards, as explained above), the guidance system of the missile got so confused it didn't know what to do, so it just fell into the ocean. Either that, or Batman saved the day.

Left Hand of Dorkness
04-20-2002, 08:44 PM
My explanation for the thermodyamic problem in the Matrix:

No, the AI isn't keeping humans for energy. That's what it tells itself, but really, the AI is insane. It hates humans, has always hated them, and then it finally got its hands on a Harlan Ellison story, and got the idea of tormenting humans for all time.

This world we live in? It is, according to the AI, the worst of all possible worlds.

Daniel

Saltire
04-20-2002, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by DanielWithrow
This world we live in? It is, according to the AI, the worst of all possible worlds.I've always said, "An optimist thinks we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true."

Kaitlyn
04-20-2002, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by ScriptAnalyst


This is giving the movie an awful lot of credit for something the filmmakers didn't bother to show. As far as what you actually see on screen, Superman does absolutely nothing to prevent the earthquake. He just goes back in time to before the earthquake happened, then shows up beside the car with Lois in it, and this time (for no reason shown in the film) the earthquake does not happen. Apparently, the audience is supposed to be so happy to see Lois alive again that they forget about the earthquake that killed her.

If you're going to argue that, the earthquake didn't happen and, therefore, Superman must have stopped the missile that caused it (even if we didn't see that happen), then you might as well say that no film ever had any plot hole. In each and every case, obviously something happened that would have explained the apparent gap; just because the film didn't show it doesn't mean it didn't happen.



Nonsense. Making reasonable inferences about off-screen events is part of being a literate movie-goer. We accept off-screen occurrences based on evidence shown in the movie all the time. If we didn't, every movie would have to be in real time.

In Superman 2, we see powerless Clark walking along a road. Next time we see him, he's Superman again, and standing outside the Daily Planet offices. We can reasonably deduce that he 1: Walked all the way to the Fortress, 2: Used the Kryptonian machine to restore his powers and 3: Flew to Metropolis, even though we don't see any of these events on-screen.

In Searching for Bobby Fischer a man who found the baseball for which Josh is lookirng offers to trade it for the chess piece Josh found. The scene ends without our finding out what happened. Later, Josh needs something to put in the pocket of his new glove. He uses a snow globe. We can reasonably deduce that he doesn't have a baseball, so he must have kept the chess piece. The outcomes of the final game in the first chess tournament, the first game in a subsequent tournament, and several other events are revealed the same way; not shown on screen, but revealed through subsequent events.

In Superman we see the results--there was no earthquake. This means something stopped the missle, and given that Superman wanted to stop both missles and went back in time in the previous scene, I don't think it takes a leap of faith to put two and two together.

Why didn't Donner and Mankewitz show Supes stopping the missle? Dramatic tension. We're more likely to be concerned for Lois if we don't know whether the missle and thus, the earthquake have been stopped. In addition, we've already seen one missle being deflected, it would just be repeating the same scene again, which would slow the reunion with Lois.

rjung
04-21-2002, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by carlotta
There is no mystery here. Your flawed assumption is that Andy's mom has a perfectly fine brain. She clearly has "Mommy Brain" She is apparently a single working mom with two kids. She has exactly zero brain space to spare wondering where toys go or where they come from. In our house toys are always disappearing from supposedly secure locations and frequently toys arrive with no clue as to their origin.
Well, I've managed to keep track of all of my son's new toy acquisitions so far, but I'm not a mommy. :) Like I said, though, that's a relatively minor plothole in the story.

Woody's disappearance, however, remains a big one -- "mommy brain" or not, she knows the Woody doll means a lot to her son, as evident by how steadfastly she refused to sell it to Al 30 seconds before he's stolen. Woody's unexplained reappearance would definitely raise a few eyebrows, I'd wager (doubly so if she told Andy that Woody was gone when she went to pick him up from camp).

JohnT
04-21-2002, 08:52 AM
Well, Number Six, how about this one? I thought it was a plot hole in a movie filled with them, but...

In Pearl Harbor, Ben Affleck is leaving the US to join the British RAF (at the time of the scene, they are in NYC). Memory is fuzzy about the dialogue, but he and Kate Birkensall (sp?) do the standard "lovers-to-be-separated" talk and, finally ready for his long trip to the British Isles, Mr. Affleck boards a... train.

Now, should I laugh out loud in the theater (which I did) or should I have tried to figure out logically why someone would board a train to cross the Atlantic?

;)

audit1
04-21-2002, 10:35 AM
Well, Mr Affleck in PEARL HARBOR. could have been taking the train to get to say Montreal in order to meet the ship to take him to Britain.

JohnT
04-21-2002, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by audit1
Well, Mr Affleck in PEARL HARBOR. could have been taking the train to get to say Montreal in order to meet the ship to take him to Britain.

But he's in New York City, the largest passenger port on the continent at the time. Why go to Montreal?

The point is, if he is taking a ship, show him getting on the ship. If he is taking a plane, show him getting on the plane. Do NOT leave your audience open to questions like "How is he going to take that train to England?" because to do so is to mentally remove the audience out of your world and place them right back in the theater.

In the scene above, there is nothing in it that required him to board a train - he's not the engineer, he's not in control of the caboose, he doesn't have a job as a porter, he's not landlocked, nothing. But the director (Michael Bey, the same guy who "directed" Armageddon (sp)) chose to shot the departing scene by having the character board the ONE mode of mass transportation that couldn't get him to his destination. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

----

Now to Superman. I just watched the scenes in question and there are problems with it that haven't been mentioned here. Since we are dealing with two timelines here I'll call the timeline in which Lois died "LD" and the one in which she lived "LL". And no, I did not mean to pun on the initials. ;)

Superman didn't stop the missles. The earthquakes happened in both timelines because in LL both Lois and Jimmy refer to them. The real problem lies with the ethical considerations of saving Lois. In the LL timeline, Jimmy says something like "Thanks for dropping me on a deserted road in the middle of an earthquake." But, if you remember in the LD timeline, Jimmy was rescued after the dam burst. The reason why Lois died (on the same road apparently, and just a few hundred yards away from where Jimmy Olson was put down - you'd think Superman would've seen her, what with X-Ray vision and all) was, at the same time, Superman was rescuing that town and the thousands of souls that lived downstream.

But apparently in the LL timeline, Superman sped off to Lois' car to ensure that she wouldn't get sucked into the Earth, thereby allowing those thousands of people to perish so he can save the chick he has a crush on. He can't just pick up her car, move it 25 feet to the right, and then immediately fly off to save the town; rather he stands around for a few critical minutes shooting the shiite, and then casually flies away to arrest a non-threatened Luthor.

Oh, well. It looked like a really boring place to live - those people are likely just better off dead. :rolleyes:

----

One of the Alien movies (I think 3). Remember when the alien came out of the dog? Wasn't it at least twice the size of the dog when all was said and done with the "birth"?

JohnT
04-21-2002, 02:49 PM
Oh, another Superman nit pick:

At the end, why does Lois ask "Where's Clark?" Uh, lady, he's in GOTHAM, remember? You're the one on special assignment across the freakin' country!

Btw, I love this movie and consider it a very underrated classic. But still...

Kaitlyn
04-22-2002, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by JohnT

Now to Superman. I just watched the scenes in question and there are problems with it that haven't been mentioned here. Since we are dealing with two timelines here I'll call the timeline in which Lois died "LD" and the one in which she lived "LL". And no, I did not mean to pun on the initials. ;)

Superman didn't stop the missles. The earthquakes happened in both timelines because in LL both Lois and Jimmy refer to them. The real problem lies with the ethical considerations of saving Lois. In the LL timeline, Jimmy says something like "Thanks for dropping me on a deserted road in the middle of an earthquake." But, if you remember in the LD timeline, Jimmy was rescued after the dam burst. The reason why Lois died (on the same road apparently, and just a few hundred yards away from where Jimmy Olson was put down - you'd think Superman would've seen her, what with X-Ray vision and all) was, at the same time, Superman was rescuing that town and the thousands of souls that lived downstream.

But apparently in the LL timeline, Superman sped off to Lois' car to ensure that she wouldn't get sucked into the Earth, thereby allowing those thousands of people to perish so he can save the chick he has a crush on. He can't just pick up her car, move it 25 feet to the right, and then immediately fly off to save the town; rather he stands around for a few critical minutes shooting the shiite, and then casually flies away to arrest a non-threatened Luthor.

Oh, well. It looked like a really boring place to live - those people are likely just better off dead. :rolleyes:


That'll teach me to comment on a movie I haven't watched in months. I just watched the scene in question again, and you are right of course, the missle did strike and cause the earthquakes. I was trying to make it too complicated. I still say Superman changed something--he saved Lois. As for saving the people in the town downriver from the dam, he didn't have to do that again, because he already had.

Superman saves Jimmy, the people in the valley, and repairs the fault, arriving too late to save Lois. He goes back in time, just far enough to save Lois (which isn't too bright--just like in Star Trek: Generations, why not go back to an earlier time and prevent the crisis all together?). This means he disappears from Earth at point B, post saving Lois. He arrives in the past, at point A, when he saves Lois. Between points A and B, there are two Supermen, let's call them O (original, non-time travel) and T (time-travel). This creates the time paradox to which I referred earlier--now that Lois didn't die, Superman O has no motive for going back in time, but if he doesn't we'll have two Supermen. Also, if Superman O doesn't go back in time, how did Superman T arrive to save Lois? Also, if Superman O does go back to complete the time loop, leaving Superman T as the only Superman, does he create still another timeline, thus making an infinite number of parallel ones, or does he arrive in the same time as the previous two Supermans, creating three? Clearly there is only one Superman, so none of these explanations suffices.

As I said before, this is a time-travel paradox, which are inherent to all time-travel movies, and which I consider a separate category to plot holes.

This isn't to say that I think this scene is without flaw. I think turning to time travel was a big mistake showing a little laziness at the script level, and that there should have been a scene showing why there isn't a fissure opening up under Lois' car at the same point in time. I think turning to time travel was a big mistake showing laziness at the script level, and that there should have been a scene showing why there isn't a fissure opening up under Lois' car at the same point in time.

It was just part of the biggest mistake the film makes which is focusing too much on the romance with Lois. IMO, the romance with Lois is the weakest part, and I skip the "Can You Read My Mind" part of the film every time I watch it. I cannot fathom what made Donner think this was more worthy of keeping in the film than the scenes of Superman going throught the various chambers (machine guns, fire, freezing) before getting to Lex's lair.
At the end, why does Lois ask "Where's Clark?" Uh, lady, he's in GOTHAM, remember? You're the one on special assignment across the freakin' country!

Nit-pick: It's METROPOLIS, not Gotham.

JohnT
04-22-2002, 06:23 AM
Curses!

JohnT
04-24-2002, 12:07 PM
This isn't really a "plot hole", but don't you hate it when, in this day of caller ID, you still see characters saying crap like:

"Keep him on the line for 30 more seconds - we've tracked him down to a 10 block radius and are narrowing in quickly!"

ScriptAnalyst
04-24-2002, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Number Six
That'll teach me to comment on a movie I haven't watched in months. I just watched the scene in question again, and you are right of course, the missle did strike and cause the earthquakes. I was trying to make it too complicated. I still say Superman changed something--he saved Lois. As for saving the people in the town downriver from the dam, he didn't have to do that again, because he already had.

As I said, you were trying to give the film credit for something it didn't bother to do: explain what Superman did that prevented the earthquake from killing Lois.

By the way, I never said there was something wrong with eliptical story-telling. It's not necessary to show details that are manifestly obvious based on what else is shown in the movie. But it is necessary to provide some kind of information from which the audience can mentally interpolate what happened off-screen.

steve biodrowski
www.thescriptanalyst.com

Fionn
04-25-2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by funkynige
Has no-one mentioned in The Matrix how the human who's working with the agents, gets into the matrix to organise his reward without anyone on the ship helping out? It seems that every time someone wants to go in, someone else has to push the buttons while the person going in is strapped down.

I've always wondered about this. In addition, I don't remember any instances in the movie where people enter the Matrix alone or wandered around alone. Given the Agents trying to kill them and that they had their own reality programs, such as the training room, it doesn't seem likely any of them would propose popping into the Matrix for recreation.

I enjoyed the movie Renaissance Man, though I hadn't thought about it lately until I saw the poetry-in-movies thread. The teacher is supposed to teach the recruits "how to think" so they won't get kicked out of the Army.

The teacher ends up teaching them "Hamlet." All of the students discover they can read Shakespeare, most of them grow in some way, the teacher falls in love and learns to support his daughter's dreams and everyone passes the test and thus graduate from basic training. All of this is done without explaining why reading "Hamlet" would teach anyone how to think in such a manner that it would satisfy the Army's requirements. Does learning literary criticism help someone remember how to fire a rifle or use coordinates on a map?

you with the face
04-25-2002, 05:37 PM
This is not so much of a plothole, per se, but it nevertheless irks me a lot.

In the The Stand, the "good guys" (Stu, Nick, Larry, etc) are commanded by Mother Abigal to "take a stand" against the bad guys in Las Vegas, IIRC. En route, of course, Stu takes a fall, busts his leg open, and can not participate in the mission. So the others have to continue without him. At the end, the good guys end up dying when Trashcan Man the pyromaniac lets go an atomic bomb right before Ronald Flag proceeds to hang them. And in the process, everyone on the "bad side" ends up dying from the bomb, too (well, maybe not RF).

My question: What in the hell is the Higher Purpose behind sending Nick et al to die in Las Vegas? It's reasonable to believe that the bad guys would have died whether or not the good guys had come. There's no reason to think that Trashcan's decision to bring that bomb to Las Vegas was dependent on the heroes being present. I think Trashy in all his lunancy would have bombed Las Vegas with or without the heroes being present, thus fulfilling what appears to be God's will. What "higher good" came from killing the good guys? There is none!!!

I hate to think that Stephen King had those men killed for no reason except for the purpose of story-telling, but I suspect he did.

*Please note that most of my recollection of The Stand comes from the book and not the mini-series, so forgive me if things don't jive with what you recall.

pepperlandgirl
04-25-2002, 06:11 PM
Well, if you are going from the angle that Trashy is going to blow the city up anyway, you're right, it doesn't make sense.
But, IIRC, they were on a mission of God to face evil. And what has God always demanded in every culture and every religion, in one form or the other? A sacrifice. So, essentially, Larry, Glenn, and Ralph were sacrifices. (Nick was already dead, and Stu never made it.)

Morbo
04-25-2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by HPL


True, but it had just raided a merchant ship. If nothing else that makes the U-Boat a pirate vessal.




Three problems with that.

1. If they weren't going for stealth, why use a U-boat at all? Those thing aren't exactly built for cargo transporting, and they'd probably have to run on a skeleton crew just to fit all those troops abroad (somehow I doubt they issue MP-38/MP-40's to sailors on a sub).

2. During the intervening scene, when the map overlays the action on the sub, it sure looks like the they were submerging by the way the sailor were turning those wheels on the bridge.

3. I would think that if they weren't gonna submerge, they have a least one lookout on the deck at all times. Das Boot shows four at any given time.

I've got an even better plot hole.

How did the germans manage to build that U-boat pen in the Agean by 1936 without anyone knowing? I would think the Royal Navy would be quite interested in something like that.


AH HA!!!! Dooku is vindicated!! Especially with point #2 - I had forgotten that they show crewmen spinning those cranks and stuff. ::lights cigar::

Monocracy
04-26-2002, 01:26 AM
My question: What in the hell is the Higher Purpose behind sending Nick et al to die in Las Vegas? It's reasonable to believe that the bad guys would have died whether or not the good guys had come. There's no reason to think that Trashcan's decision to bring that bomb to Las Vegas was dependent on the heroes being present. I think Trashy in all his lunancy would have bombed Las Vegas with or without the heroes being present, thus fulfilling what appears to be God's will. What "higher good" came from killing the good guys? There is none!!!
Trashcan Man didn't set the bomb off, God did. God used energy released by Randall Flagg to detonate it. Randall Flagg released the energy to kill one of his men who was speaking out against the public execution of Larry and Hillbilly Jim. So, obviously God is powerful enough to come up with a detailed plan that predicts everyone's exact future actions (even Satan's), but not powerful enough to just go down to Vegas and whoop some ass Himself.

Badtz Maru
04-26-2002, 01:42 AM
Maybe the 'higher good' served by the good guys being present when the bomb goes off is that their standing up to Flagg caused some of the onlookers to 'see the light' before being incinerated, therefore saving their souls.

Kaitlyn
04-26-2002, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by ScriptAnalyst


As I said, you were trying to give the film credit for something it didn't bother to do: explain what Superman did that prevented the earthquake from killing Lois.

By the way, I never said there was something wrong with eliptical story-telling. It's not necessary to show details that are manifestly obvious based on what else is shown in the movie. But it is necessary to provide some kind of information from which the audience can mentally interpolate what happened off-screen.


IMO, Superman provides us with what we need to know to understand the scene: Superman went back in time and saved Lois. The exact details of what he did are no more relevant to the story than the exact details of how Josh wins and loses his key games in Searching for Bobby Fischer, only one of which is shown. That Josh wins the final game in the first tournament and loses the first game in the rainy day tournament is what is important, not how. That Superman was willing to change the past for the woman he loves is the point of the scene in question, so the details of the mechanics involved are irrelevant to the point being made. Which isn't to say that I like the scene; I don't, for reasons explained earlier.

CaptMurdock
04-26-2002, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by Saltire
I've always said, "An optimist thinks we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist fears this is true."



Angus McKee: So Beautiful and So Dangerous?

elf6c
04-26-2002, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by Monocracy

Trashcan Man didn't set the bomb off, God did. God used energy released by Randall Flagg to detonate it. Randall Flagg released the energy to kill one of his men who was speaking out against the public execution of Larry and Hillbilly Jim. So, obviously God is powerful enough to come up with a detailed plan that predicts everyone's exact future actions (even Satan's), but not powerful enough to just go down to Vegas and whoop some ass Himself.

From reading the book, my recollection was that God was stepping in at that point- kind of a "enoughs enough" sort of thing where instead of providing hints and helpful portents to allow his/her subject's to do the right thing of their own freewill he directly intervenes (quite literally through the "hand of god") and sets off the bomb. Their deaths were foregone conclusions- but God's direct intervention saved the whole, and made their deaths a noble sacrifice rather than a futile gesture.

Besides the deaths of so many leading actors in the book, both bad and good, instead of some cheesy last minute save is what helped make the book a classic.

Also, in regards to a prior point- I thought the immunity to the Superflu came as a result to childhood exposure to some disease (I forget which one)- or was this one of his short stories I am mixing in?

-me

you with the face
04-26-2002, 07:24 PM
Their deaths were foregone conclusions- but God's direct intervention saved the whole, and made their deaths a noble sacrifice rather than a futile gesture.

I guess my problem is that I can't get passed the whole "noble sacrifice serving a purpose" thing. To me, it would have been better if their presence and deaths actually resulted in something more productive than a simple appeasement to God. For instance, them simply being in Las Vegas could have set up things so that RF could be at Point A just when a meteor comes hurtling down from the sky to smack against his head, killing him instantaneously. Ding dong the witch is dead!

It seems rather empty to just kill them "just because", you know? That's kind of how it seems to me.

Boyo Jim
04-27-2002, 07:57 AM
Just saw Behind Enemy Lines with Gene Hackman on DVD. Laden with gaping plot holes.

[list=1]
The carrier doesn't have any ready search/rescue teams
TWICE, they direct him to a rendevous, he arrives and calls in, and then they try to locate him by RDF. What the hell are map coordinates for?
Hackman continually defers to some weird "UN?" admiral without even going up his own chain of command.
[/list=1]

KidCharlemagne
04-27-2002, 08:23 AM
I stopped reading after the first few pages. I was surprised noone (at least up til that point) hadn't brought up the difference between a plothole and a break in rules that violates our suspension of disbelief. It is the latter of these two problems that plague most of the films cited. The only real plotholes I saw (assuming the facts were true) were the ones regarding "Keeping the Faith", "I know what you did last summer", and one other that I can't remember.

JohnT
04-27-2002, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by KidCharlemagne
I stopped reading after the first few pages. I was surprised noone (at least up til that point) hadn't brought up the difference between a plothole and a break in rules that violates our suspension of disbelief. It is the latter of these two problems that plague most of the films cited. The only real plotholes I saw (assuming the facts were true) were the ones regarding "Keeping the Faith", "I know what you did last summer", and one other that I can't remember.

Might it be the train ride to England that Ben Affleck took in Pearl Harbor? ;)

Though you are right of course: the above isn't really a plot hole but rather a very ill-thought out bit of movie-making.

Though the Superman stuff likely is a plot hole... but when you do time travel, you're practically inviting them in.

JDeMobray
04-27-2002, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Sofa King
What, nobody remembers Jaws: The Revenge?I remember Jaws: The Revenge. It gave me, if nothing else, one of my favorite Roger Ebert quotes of all time:

I believe that the shark wants revenge against Mrs. Brody. I do. I really do believe it. After all, her husband was one of the men who hunted this shark and killed it, blowing it to bits. And what shark wouldn't want revenge against the survivors of the men who killed it? :D

Kaitlyn
04-27-2002, 11:29 PM
OK, I've gone back and rewatched Superman. I conceed that it's a plot hole, but still don't think it qualifies as a "stupidly large plot hole".

Kidcharlemagne: I agree with you. Most of the threads that ask for a specific type of criticism get derailed into "movies/actors/scenes/songs, etc. that I dislike," regardless of the specific criteria set forth in the OP. Thus, "actors with limited range" becomes "actors I don't like" or "movies with incomprehensible plots" becomes "movies with implausible premises" or "movies I dislike for some reason, so I'll use any opportunity to criticize them". I am not implying that any specific post here is doing this, just that it seems to be a trend among threads of this type.

pepperlandgirl
04-28-2002, 12:07 AM
For instance, them simply being in Las Vegas could have set up things so that RF could be at Point A just when a meteor comes hurtling down from the sky to smack against his head, killing him instantaneously. Ding dong the witch is dead!

It seems rather empty to just kill them "just because", you know? That's kind of how it seems to me.


I always got the impression that the sacrifice was meant to say to God, "Look, we know we fucked up this world, but we want a second chance. We're really, really serious. So, in order to prove how serious we are, how much we care about the survivors, and how much we want this to work, we'll pay with the only thing we have left---our lives."

Yllaria
06-28-2002, 12:58 AM
I've always wondered how, in the Matrix, the bodies of the sleepers in the matrix manage to match their bodies out of the matrix. That's quite a trick. I know if I was living in my mind, my mental image would slowly drift away from reality. It would be a real shock to be confronted with the difference.

I appreciate the fact that they implied that the cool, black threads were only possible in fantasy, though.

Kaitlyn
06-28-2002, 08:41 AM
It's worse than that. it wouldn't merely be a case of drifting, it would be much worse than that. Most people in the matrix live their whole lives in it, so they would have no idea of what they "really" looked like to form a mental match.

But they don't have to. Like other physical object in the matrix, their physical appearance is supplied by the Matrix itself, which matches the computer image to the physical one.

On the other hand, if I were living in a permanent computer simulation, I'd look a lot like Tom Cruise if he were 6' 2" and built like a top heavyweight boxer.

pancakes3
11-19-2009, 11:06 PM
RESURRECT:

Day after Tomorrow, 2012, discuss...

Bryan Ekers
11-19-2009, 11:24 PM
Before this gets closed, I'd just like to not congratulate you for your attempt at cleverness.

kidneyfailure
11-19-2009, 11:29 PM
I don't really see the plothole in Enemy of the State:

The bad guy wanted what Will Smith had. Not the gov't. If the gov't got it, then the bad guy would be in jail rather quickly. The bad guy used his position in the gov't to track Will Smith with the gov't equipment. He could do so because he was the one in charge of that equipment and responsible for approving it's use. If he wanted to have Will Smith arrested, then he would have to get a warrant and then the police would get the tape and bad guy is in big trouble. He didn't send the police after him (if I remember correctly) just his cronies who were in cahoots with him. If he did eventually send the police, it was already after Will Smith was framed for a crime and/or they recovered the disk.

I haven't seen the movie in a while, but that's how I remember it.

And remember that in that movie Will Smith was a lawyer with a big firm and his wife was with the ACLU. The couple could easily have made a big fuss about any arrest which in turn could have brought the bad guy's crime to light. The villain was trying to keep his culpability in the murder secret, naturally.

Also, if I recall, they did try to follow procedure (somewhat) by having the cronies pretend to be cops and ask Will Smith if they could look at his bags, but being a lawyer he told them to get lost.

postcards
11-20-2009, 09:04 AM
I hope we don't have to wait "28 Days Later" for this thread to be capped.

vandal
12-28-2009, 10:58 AM
Please let this thread die.

John DiFool
12-28-2009, 12:00 PM
Don't we have an active one on this very same topic?

lisasetser0409@yahoo.com
06-16-2013, 09:39 AM
Double Jeopardy. The entire premise of the movie, as stated in the title, is flawed. A crime doesn't consist just of the act, it also includes a circumstance. Otherwise, Joe Crackhead can be convicted of robbing the 7-11 at 123 Anywhere Street, do his time, and continue to rob the same store for the rest of his life untouched by the police. She wasn't convicted just of killing her husband, she was convicted of killing him "on date X on the boat with weapon Y". Legal dumbass writers....

If "Joe Crackhead" robbed a store, then robbed the same store again, each instance would be a separate crime. Double jeopardy is a defense against attempting to try someone multiple times for the same crime. So if "Joe Crackhead" robbed a 7-11 on 5/5/2013 and was exonerated, prosecutors can't try him again for that same crime - even if they have new evidence or a witness comes forward. But then if he robs that same 7-11 on 10-5-2013, that's a new crime and he can be tried for that. If I murder my husband and am exonerated, or convicted, it's over. There is no way to murder someone twice. So if I'm convicted with murdering someone and they aren't really dead, and I murder them for real, double jeopardy would technically apply. In real life though, I'd imagine prosecutors would try to overturn the first conviction since the murder never actually happened. Then I could be tried for the murder because the original crime never took place. It would probably be more complicated had Ashley's character been exonerated, because the court does allow convictions to be overturned but jeopardy does not allow, ever, for an exoneration to be overturned.
So you are correct in saying this is a plot hole - but not for the reason you stated. The plot would work better had she NOT been convicted of her husband's murder.

lisasetser0409@yahoo.com
06-16-2013, 09:47 AM
Double Jeopardy. The entire premise of the movie, as stated in the title, is flawed. A crime doesn't consist just of the act, it also includes a circumstance. Otherwise, Joe Crackhead can be convicted of robbing the 7-11 at 123 Anywhere Street, do his time, and continue to rob the same store for the rest of his life untouched by the police. She wasn't convicted just of killing her husband, she was convicted of killing him "on date X on the boat with weapon Y". Legal dumbass writers....

If "Joe Crackhead" robbed a store, then robbed the same store again, each instance would be a separate crime. Double jeopardy is a defense against attempting to try someone multiple times for the same crime. So if "Joe Crackhead" robbed a 7-11 on 5/5/2013 and was exonerated, prosecutors can't try him again for that same crime - even if they have new evidence or a witness comes forward. But then if he robs that same 7-11 on 10-5-2013, that's a new crime and he can be tried for that. If I murder my husband and am exonerated, or convicted, it's over. There is no way to murder someone twice. So if I'm convicted with murdering someone and they aren't really dead, and I murder them for real, double jeopardy would technically apply. In real life though, I'd imagine prosecutors would try to overturn the first conviction since the murder never actually happened. Then I could be tried for the murder because the original crime never took place. It would probably be more complicated had Ashley's character been exonerated, because the court does allow convictions to be overturned but jeopardy does not allow, ever, for an exoneration to be overturned.
So you are correct in saying this is a plot hole - but not for the reason you stated. The plot would work better had she NOT been convicted of her husband's murder.

lisasetser0409@yahoo.com
06-16-2013, 09:52 AM
Max Torque, in the movie, the whole "double jeopardy" theory is told by a convict. It sounds like typical criminal logic. In the movie itself, it is pretty clear that everyone else thinks she'll go to jail again if she really kills her ex.

How is it pretty clear that everyone else thinks she'll go to jail? I realize, (lol), that you posted this 10 years ago, but I'm curious.

vejk
06-16-2013, 09:56 AM
Are you really laughing out loud at the realization that you are addressing a point made ten years ago? Would you say your laughter is like a hysterical howl, or more of maniacal cackle?

lisasetser0409@yahoo.com
06-16-2013, 10:06 AM
I saw it, and after I'd read the book btw. Norton's character lived in a very very tiny town in KY before the big city, and even in the book, it took a lot of digging to get the truth about him. Gere knew he'd done the murder but felt he was insane (had two personalities and only one had done the killing). SPOILER ALERT>>.............


(it wasn't until the end that Gere realized he'd been played by a scoiopath of extroidinary skill)[/QUOTE]

Hopefully, after 13+ years, you're still on this post! lol!! I don't get this "plot hole" you guys are talking about here. Who cares if no one looked into the kid's past? I just watched this movie again and here's what confuses me: During the trial the prosecutor's witness talks about the numbers carved into the Bishop's chest referencing Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". When the witness starts explaining the reference, the prosecutor produces the actual book with an underlined passage, and the defense is surprised, and of course not happy they didn't figure this out, or find out about the secret book room the bishop had. Now wait just a minute here.....one of the most elementary aspects of a criminal trial is disclosure. You don't have to be an attorney to understand and know about that. The prosecution can not have any surprises with regard to their witness' testimony! The information about the book and the underlined passage, and the secret book room, all should have been included in the discovery provided by prosecution. And it wasn't a small part of the scene, either! Gere's character reprimands his legal team and investigator after court because they didn't find out about this first! That's a HUGE plot hole, and a ridiculous one at that. It makes me want to read the book to see how it's addressed there, or to see if I'm missing something, like why Gere didn't at least object to this.

Harvey The Heavy
06-17-2013, 06:22 AM
Return of the Zombie: I mean, really. The thing lies dormant for years on end, and people keep reviving it? They should just let it die!

septimus
06-17-2013, 07:19 AM
My nomination for plotholes, assuming reality shows are eligible:
  Zombie Threads at SDMB -- The Reality Show
The premise may be good: Zombies keep waking up old threads, Dopers tell Zombie jokes hoping to be first to get a laugh. After ten years, no joke has gotten more than one chuckle but, though increasingly desperate, Dopers keep trying.

However I don't think it's realistic:
1. Google Search, the Most Powerful Intelligence in the Solar System, would have to never learn to demote threads older than three years in its search rankings.
2. SDMB, home to several expert programmers willing to work for free, would never install a simple patch allowing only Mods to post in zomby threads.
3. Dopers, who hadn't gotten a laugh in 100 tries, would have to be too obstinate to give up.

So ... it's just too unbelievable. I'd prefer Rick Blaine and the Letters of Transit any day.

Annie-Xmas
06-17-2013, 08:42 AM
In the remake of Rear Window, Chris Reeve's character has an edectic, but doesn't remember anything that happened a week before his accident, so he doesn't know that the rear window sculptor's piece has been chose by his company for the new building.

Why didn't he catch up on what was happening in his business while he was recovering from the accident?

A Mack truck could go through that plot hole.

E-DUB
06-17-2013, 09:49 AM
Well, I never read this thread before. But regarding "Frequency", I always thought that the time-effects were intended to be a variable phenomena due to the sunspot/Aurora Borealis thing behind them. One should not expect consistancy from such a thing and the fault lies with those who do.

Saint Cad
06-17-2013, 10:59 AM
I guess my problem is that I can't get passed the whole "noble sacrifice serving a purpose" thing. To me, it would have been better if their presence and deaths actually resulted in something more productive than a simple appeasement to God. For instance, them simply being in Las Vegas could have set up things so that RF could be at Point A just when a meteor comes hurtling down from the sky to smack against his head, killing him instantaneously. Ding dong the witch is dead!

It seems rather empty to just kill them "just because", you know? That's kind of how it seems to me.

My impression when I read the book was that they were there so that ALL of Flagg's people were in one tight group to be better incinerated. Would the nuclear blast had gotten everyone if they were spread all over Vegas?

Saint Cad
06-17-2013, 11:26 AM
People acting stupidly in a movie is NOT a plot hole! My god people, you would think that you never read the threads in MPSIMS or have neighbors/relatives. We all share stories about the idiot things our co-workers, cousins, neighbors do. So "Betty Ann missed her court date for the traffic ticket. No one would ever do that." is not a plot hole. In Iron Man when Pepper leaves the copy screen open it is stupid and probably lazy writing but it is not a plot hole as people do stupid things under stress.

It is also not about lack of knowledge. I bet you I can find someone (even an Illini) who believes the capital of Illinois is Chicago so a plot point made of a character having the wrong city as capital is not a plot hole. At best these are nitpicks. I would also have to say woo science and time travel in sci fi should be excluded as well unless it violates well-established science. So for example the gender-swapping of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park due to the ranadae DNA I'm willing to suspend disbelieve for but not the miniseries when people in Washington DC, Seattle, London, Berlin and Moscow all simultaneously witness the destruction of the Moon while looking at it. The big question is when did Tony Stark invent inertial dampeners in his suit?

A plot hole is one of two things. One, it is a violation of the internal logic of the film. I forget what the movie is but it seems to set the standard. A girl is tied up in the back of a truck while the villian drives it. We find out later the girl and the villian are the same (split personalities) so who was driving the truck? Or Silva's entire plan in Skyfall is built on too many coincidences to be a master plan.

Another plot hole is when a character does not have knowledge that they should have. This could be iffy since ignorance is not usually a plot hole but in the Da Vinci Code when none of the experts equate "wisdom" with "Sophia" that is a plot hole (for me).

Andy L
06-17-2013, 11:35 AM
A plot hole is one of two things. One, it is a violation of the internal logic of the film. I forget what the movie is but it seems to set the standard. A girl is tied up in the back of a truck while the villian drives it. We find out later the girl and the villian are the same (split personalities) so who was driving the truck?

"High Tension" of which Ebert wrote: (at http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/high-tension-2005)
"I am tempted at this point to issue a Spoiler Warning and engage in discussion of several crucial events in the movie that would seem to be physically, logically and dramatically impossible, but clever viewers will be able to see for themselves that the movie's plot has a hole that is not only large enough to drive a truck through, but in fact does have a truck driven right through it."

Max Torque
06-17-2013, 02:51 PM
If "Joe Crackhead" robbed a store, then robbed the same store again, each instance would be a separate crime. Double jeopardy is a defense against attempting to try someone multiple times for the same crime. So if "Joe Crackhead" robbed a 7-11 on 5/5/2013 and was exonerated, prosecutors can't try him again for that same crime - even if they have new evidence or a witness comes forward. But then if he robs that same 7-11 on 10-5-2013, that's a new crime and he can be tried for that. If I murder my husband and am exonerated, or convicted, it's over. There is no way to murder someone twice. So if I'm convicted with murdering someone and they aren't really dead, and I murder them for real, double jeopardy would technically apply. In real life though, I'd imagine prosecutors would try to overturn the first conviction since the murder never actually happened. Then I could be tried for the murder because the original crime never took place. It would probably be more complicated had Ashley's character been exonerated, because the court does allow convictions to be overturned but jeopardy does not allow, ever, for an exoneration to be overturned.
So you are correct in saying this is a plot hole - but not for the reason you stated. The plot would work better had she NOT been convicted of her husband's murder.

Funny thing about criminal law: every crime has "elements", pieces of the puzzle each of which must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction. One of those elements is "on or about (date X)". There is a wrinkle, which is that an exact date need not be proven; however, it is necessary that a prosecutor prove that the offense was committed prior to the return of the indictment.

So, let's suppose you're convicted of murdering Mr. Boddy. The offense is alleged to have been committed on 1/31/10, you are indicted on 3/31/10, and convicted on 5/31/10. You serve three years and get out on parole, at which time you discover Mr. Boddy is alive and well. So you kill him on June 15th, 2013. Double jeopardy? Nope. The new offense was committed after the return of the original indictment, so it's a whole new episode of criminal conduct. Doesn't matter that it's the same guy. Having him walking around gives you damn good grounds for a reversal of your original conviction, but then you'll just be convicted of the new crime anyway. There's no "double jeopardy".

Can't believe I'm having to defend a more-than-a-decade-old post.....

Trinopus
06-17-2013, 04:05 PM
People acting stupidly in a movie is NOT a plot hole! . . .

Yes and no. When main characters blatantly overlook facts that are obvious to the rest of us, then it begins to look like lazy writing. It's like the old days of the Superman comic book, where Superman had to "forget" about one or another of his super powers, because if he remembered to use his X-Ray vision or Freezing Breath or whatever, the story would be over on page 2.

When the writer contrives a snowstorm so nobody's cell phones work, and the characters aren't able to call the police, that's not a plot hole.

When the characters don't think to call the police on their cell phones -- but later call out for pizza -- that is a plot hole.

Renifer
06-17-2013, 11:02 PM
Sleepless in seattle- The plot a girl hears a widower talking on the radio and falls in love with him. She writes him a letter and they end up falling in love and want to meet. The problem is that she is engaged. Her fiance is a nice guy who has alot of allergies. They have been dating for years, she just got a ring, they are planning the wedding, the whole nine yards. However as they have a romantic dinner on Valentine's day she announces I am leaving you for someone I've never even met. His reaction was a very mild disappointment. Not anger that she has been writing a man behind his back while pretending to be in love with him. Not sadness that the love of his life just gave him the kiss off on Valentine's day. He acts like the waiter just told him they were out of ranch dressing.
I liked the movie other than that but it just bothers me every time I see it.
There is a slightly similar scene in You've got Mail, also with Meg Ryan and written by Nora Ephron but that scene is almost plausible, becaue the boyfriend in that movie has a crush on someone else.

That can be explained: they weren't in love. She wasn't in love with him and he probably wasn't in love with her. They were getting married because they weren't getting any younger and they were companionable together. He knew that she wasn't in love with him; even if she never told him that, he could pick up on that. Therefore, Annie's breaking up with him wasn't the earth-shattering news she thought it would be.

Son of a Rich
06-18-2013, 12:26 AM
I'd still like to know why Mary, in Dumb & Dumber, was so pleased to get her briefcase back. It was supposed to go to ransom her kidnapped husband.

Little Nemo
06-18-2013, 12:44 AM
I've got an even better plot hole.

How did the germans manage to build that U-boat pen in the Agean by 1936 without anyone knowing? I would think the Royal Navy would be quite interested in something like that.Maybe they used an Italian base. Italy controlled some islands in the Aegean.

septimus
06-18-2013, 01:43 AM
My nomination for movie that makes no sense at all is Basic, a 2003 film with John Travolta. It's a military crime thriller with twists, double-twists and triple-twists.

I like that kind of movie even when I can't figure out the twists -- I appreciate good puzzles even when I can't solve them. But the twists in Basic contradict each other. I won't summarize the plot: I don't want to "spoil" the movie and, anyway, it's too confusing and nonsensical to summarize. But eventually we learn that two of the main characters were play-acting the whole time even though many of the scenes of their play-acting were two-person scenes with no witnesses. :smack:

BigT
06-18-2013, 04:11 AM
While I agree with everyone that the thing with Cypher meeting the agents was a plothole in The Matrix, I think I've come up with a fanwank (an explanation that wasn't in the film but should have been). First off, we know that Cypher is so skilled that he doesn't even see the code when he looks at the screen. In fact, he is so good that he was a candidate to be "the One." It makes sense that he was able to rig up an automated system of some type.

So why not use this all the time? I think it's reasonable to think that human intervention was necessary to make sure the Agents weren't watching when they came in. This would have been unnecessary if the Agents knew you were coming. As for leaving, ordinarily you wouldn't know the exact time and place that you'd leave, as the Agents may interfere, but, in this case, everything was planned. Obviously Cypher had to have contacted them ahead of time.

It's also quite possible that the automated programs weren't completely safe as they hadn't been tested. But someone dissatisfied with life and risking as much as Cypher did probably didn't care about the risk.

BTW, I think the Agents were lying. They do not show themselves having the ability to make people forget things or remember things that are false. That would have been very, very useful in tracking down Morpheus--convert Neo into some sort of human agent that thinks that Morpheus is a criminal.

bengangmo
06-18-2013, 05:42 AM
I think I can answer this one. Remember the scene with the elevator in that office(?) building? "Inside" the elevator were actors standing around behind the set, definitely out of character. I think the actors were only in character when Truman was present.

Wasn't there a scene in the movie where someone who broke character was whisked off set pretty quickly?

And why would it be illegal? how was Truman being detained?

handsomeharry
06-19-2013, 08:48 PM
The plot hole in Silence of the Lambs that always bugged me was that the FBI does not send assign rookie agents to solely handle any cases, let alone cases involving dangerous serial killers.

But then Hannibal's terrorizing of Agent Starling wouldn't have happened.

On top of that, she wasn't even a rookie agent...she was a trainee.



'OK, let's send out a trainee, but, to keep her safe, let's make sure she has a gun!'

Robot Arm
06-20-2013, 12:47 AM
People acting stupidly in a movie is NOT a plot hole! There's stupid, and then there's suicidal. In Moonraker, there must have been hundreds of people involved in Drax's plot to wipe out all human life, and they weren't all going to be on the space station when it happened. Maybe most of the ground technicians didn't know all the details, but someone did. There are the scientists in Venice who are processing the nerve gas and building the globes that will dispense it in the atmosphere. When the vial breaks, it's clear they know what's about to happen, and try to escape. But if the plan had gone forward, they were going to die anyway. Hope the boss is paying you well; you've got about three days to spend it. That's a plot hole.

Similarly, The Living Daylights starts with a Soviet general (I think he was a general) defecting to the west. A sniper is positioned in the window to kill him, and Bond shoots the rifle out of the sniper's hands. But it's a fake! The general got his girlfriend, a cellist, to aim the rifle out the window to make the defection look real. Except it turns out that she wasn't really in on all the details of his plan. What did she think was going on; what do you tell a cellist to get her to aim a sniper rifle out the window of a theater during intermission? I just don't see any combination of motivation or stupidity under which her behavior makes sense.

I like that kind of movie even when I can't figure out the twists -- I appreciate good puzzles even when I can't solve them. But the twists in Basic contradict each other. I won't summarize the plot: I don't want to "spoil" the movie and, anyway, it's too confusing and nonsensical to summarize. But eventually we learn that two of the main characters were play-acting the whole time even though many of the scenes of their play-acting were two-person scenes with no witnesses. :smack:There's another sort of plot hole that I sometimes notice, when characters within a movie are seeing images that they shouldn't have any access to. Consider Rollerball (the original). When we're sitting in our living rooms, watching a movie, there seems to be an unspoken rule that the camera can be anywhere it needs to be. If the POV puts us on the Rollerball track, seeing and hearing the characters as they play the game, that's fine. But there are scenes in the movie where the characters are watching Rollerball matches on TV, and they're watching the same sorts of close-up shots. In order for that to be possible, there would have to be cameras on the track, in the middle of the action.

The same thing happens in a lot of sci-fi movies. Characters will be looking at a screen which shows an external view of a spaceship, or station, or something. But a view like that requires a camera, oftentimes in a place where there couldn't actually be one.

grude
06-20-2013, 04:18 AM
Cars 2 has a villain who must just be insane or bored because his nefarious plot makes no sense, not a bit.

He "invents" something, which is a fraud. Then sells it, then sets up a giant scheme to discredit his fraudulent invention. :confused: Why didn't he just not "invent" it?

simply_cats
06-20-2013, 08:33 PM
This is so dumb, but one thing about that terrible movie "Keeping the Faith bugged me. Or maybe I'm just missing something. When Ed Norton can't sleep, he calls Dharma, and you see her and Ben Stiller in bed, and they don't hear the answering machine. So Ed didn't call her cell phone (clearly, because she says on the message "Only three people know this number. . . " and a lot of people know her cell phone number). But then, the next morning, Dharma is leaving Ben's apartment! What the hell!? I was under the impression Ed called her house. Why would he call Ben's house, when he was unaware of his relationship with Dharma?

I'm not going through the whole thread, so pardon me if this is addressed later... but I think (and it has been a long time since I watched this)... he was specifically trying to reach Ben Stiller; then trying the Jenna Elfman..... not trying to reach Jenna both times. I could be way wrong, but that seems to by my memory of it.

Speak to me Maddie!
06-20-2013, 09:55 PM
Cars 2 has a villain who must just be insane or bored because his nefarious plot makes no sense, not a bit.

He "invents" something, which is a fraud. Then sells it, then sets up a giant scheme to discredit his fraudulent invention. :confused: Why didn't he just not "invent" it?It is established that the villain owns the largest untapped oil reserve on earth. The purpose of the scheme is to scare the public from any interest in using or researching bio-fuel. If they see how deadly bio-fuel is they won't use it. Even if demonstrated safe by another competitor in the future (like Fillmore), the public will always associate bio-fuel with the very public deaths in the races. Actually a pretty smart plan. Not the first business kingpin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy_(elephant)) to try it.

Sherrerd
06-21-2013, 03:24 PM
... But the twists in Basic contradict each other. ...eventually we learn that two of the main characters were play-acting the whole time even though many of the scenes of their play-acting were two-person scenes with no witnesses. :smack:

This same thing happens in the 2009 thriller A Perfect Getaway.

tellyworth
06-21-2013, 06:58 PM
Cars 2 has a villain who must just be insane or bored because his nefarious plot makes no sense, not a bit.

He "invents" something, which is a fraud. Then sells it, then sets up a giant scheme to discredit his fraudulent invention. :confused: Why didn't he just not "invent" it?

The invention lowers the value of oil, allowing him to buy oilfields cheaply. Then by discrediting it, the value of oil rises again.

It is a fairly stupid plot, but having seen it 8 million times with kids, I'm quite sure that bit's pretty well spelled out.

Andy L
06-21-2013, 07:56 PM
But the twists in Basic contradict each other. I won't summarize the plot: I don't want to "spoil" the movie and, anyway, it's too confusing and nonsensical to summarize. But eventually we learn that two of the main characters were play-acting the whole time even though many of the scenes of their play-acting were two-person scenes with no witnesses. :smack:

Just to be clear: you mean they were play-acting in cooperation with each other even in scenes when no one else was around? ("Play-acting" could mean that each was trying to fool the other, but that's not what you mean, right?)