Yeah.
Of course, he could always have just told the Captain there was a terrorist on board demanding money and that it needed to be wired to Account X.
Then he could later get his money out of the account, assuming he’d use whatever menthod in the original plan…
None of the other wackiness was even necessary. At all. Because one can just tell the Captain that there’s a bomb and he’ll call up Corporate and have them put $50M into a random account…
-Joe
I don’t think this is a plot hole.
It’s not really relavent what the duration of the scheduled cruise was, or how much fuel was on board. Once they got into the storm, they could have gotten off couse, run out of fuel, and drifted for days, taking them very far away from their origin.
My personal theory: The three-hour tour was a tour that was supposed to take them from one Hawaiian island and drop them off at another. Thus, they took their stuff with them.
It might be more believable if everyone doesn’t abruptly become moronic weaklings whenever Lector comes by. Lector is not what you’d call a physically imposing man, and raw viciousness doesn’t go that far when facing down a pissed-off cop with a billy club. And of course, everyone makes all kinds of dumb mistakes next to Lector.
He was the Batman power. Most people near him starts to get stupid, except their sidekicks.
Not to mention the fact that the world’s most famous vicious serial killer would rate at least his own SWAT detail right by the cage instead of two police officers nearing retirement. That always kind of pissed me off, too.
It was really too minor to be a plothole but I still remember it being a stupid scene in a generally good TV series.
On the series Wiseguy, Frank (one of the good guys) has been taken hostage. Roger (a guy that’s half way between being a bad guy and a good guy) is ordered to shoot him by the chief bad guy. Roger takes a submachine gun walks over and shoots Frank who falls over. The chief bad guy, and all of us watching the show, are convinced Roger killed Frank and he’s now decided to join the bad guy side.
Except, as it turns out, Roger didn’t really shoot Frank. He had loaded the gun with blanks and Frank took a dive.
Now, on TV that’s going to work. Because TV censors have decided that the sight of actual blood is too much for viewers. So people who are shot on TV just fall down and die without a mark on them.
But it was unrealistic as hell to pretend that the chief bad guy wouldn’t have been able to tell the difference between Frank pretending to be shot by a submachine gun and Frank really being shot by a submachine gun.
Sort of a plothole, more of an annoying scene:
In The Notebook, James Garner is in a private meeting with the doctor, who refers to the patient as “Miss Hamilton”. While that might make sense when around her (she seems unaware of her marriage), it’s either incredibly insensitive or insulting when speaking directly to her husband.
Of course the only reason for this is so that there’s a “surprise” ending (more of an attempted emotionally manipulative payoff) when it’s finally revealed what happened. This error made me think there was something else going on, which at least kept it interesting, but ultimately just annoyed me.
The movie would have been 10-500x better if James Garner had turned out to be the ‘Baxter’ (Asa?).
Dunno if it’s a plothole, per se, more like a monent which just doesn’t fit, but in “2001: A Space Odyssey”, why does Dave tell HAL he’d like to hear him sing the song? Just seems out of character for Dave, being so determined as he was to shut HAL down. Was he feeling sympathy for HAL?
mm
Dave is lonely, scared, irrational himself by now, and apparantly having some second thoughts. ymmv
I got the impression that Dave wasn’t actually angry with HAL, he understood that HAL was just a computer that was behaving irrationally because it had been given conflicting orders. He knows that he needs to shut HAL down, but there’s no feeling of revenge or triumph. Plus, I think he was a bit rattled when HAL started saying that he was afraid.
Or, Dave could have thought that if HAL’s occupied with singing his dumb song, he won’t try anything while Dave’s yanking out the last control chips.
Not defending the movie, which I’ve never seen, but exactly this situation happened in England. In 1987.
It’s not a movie, but in the final episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation ("All Good Things . . . "), the plot centers around Picard traveling between three different time periods. In the earlier two, he encounters a strange anomaly in space. It’s larger in the earlier time. This is eventually explained by the fact that the anomaly is made of anti-time; it is created in the future and then grows backwards into the past, so that the further back you go the bigger it gets. If Picard can’t find a way to stop it, it will keep growing back in time until it destroys humanity before they ever existed.
Picard leads a ship to look for the anomaly in the future-most of the three time periods, but they don’t find anything. The crew thinks Picard has gone senile. But then there’s the pivotal scene in the 10-Forward lounge, where Picard realizes that he created the anomaly by scanning for it in all three time periods. The reason they hadn’t seen it in the future-most time period was because they hadn’t created it yet.
The crew returns to the site of the anomaly, and sure enough, there it is. Picard is vindicated. Coordinating their actions in all three time periods, they manage to destroy it. Q (who has been manipulating events the whole time) explains to Picard that his realization of the paradox in 10-Forward was the key – at that moment he revealed humanity’s true potential to see beyond their limitations and so forth.
Too bad Picard’s realization makes no sense.
If they created the anomaly by performing their scan, then in should have been there before the scan, and not been their when they returned afterwards. Because it was already established that the anomaly grows backwards in time.
Another view on Gilligan’s Island.
Short version: The money, the clothes, the tons of visitors who instantly forget how to get back to the island, all of it was the delusions of one survivor laying on the beach, dehydrated, delirious, dying…
I remember seeing an old British movie (maybe SciFi, maybe ‘The Day The Earth Caught Fire’) and they referred to a cyclone in the US but the accompanying picture was of a tornado.
Could that what the movie could have been trying to suggest?
Bob
Wasn’t the tornado in The Wizard of Oz referred to as a cyclone? Did the word ever have a dual meaning?
And then in Hannibal we see that the man who could get his handcuffs off while his wrists were shackled together behind his back through a cell door using only a tool improvised from a ball point pen…
had one hand cuffed to Starling’s through a refrigerator door handle in a fully stocked kitchen and was unable to find any way to escape that did not involve cutting someone’s hand off.