[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
I don’t remember the U-boat preparing to dive. Subs from that era ran better on the surface and had limited endurance underwater, so they’d only dive to attack or to hide. I wouldn’t call it a plot hole that they’d make that trip without submerging. Now, whether you could stow away on a U-boat for a couple hundred miles without being noticed seems a bit unlikely. And if there’s dialog that the captain ordered a dive for no reason, that’s a goof.
[/QUOTE]
When subs of that era ran on the surface they had numerous lookouts posted on teh bridge. I think at least one of them would have noticed a guy climbing on the deck. Also in the long shot showing Indy climbing onto the deck, the bridge was clear.
[QUOTE=Rick]
I watched Raiders of the Lost Ark today. there is a huge plot hole in that movie. Indy escapes onto the cargo ship with the Ark.
A German U-boat stops the cargo ship, grabs the Ark, and the girl, while Indy hides.
The U-boat goes to leave, preparing to dive. Indy is seen climbing up on the deck of the sub.
The next scene the sub is arriving at the sub pen on the island.
Where has Indy been hiding all this time? How long can he hold his breath?
[/QUOTE]
Believe it or not the original script, as portrayed in the Marvel Comics adaptation, has the sub diving while putting up its periscope. Indy then uses the whip (I should get one of those…they appear to be useful beyond expectations) to lash himself to the top of the periscope and presumably spends the time fantasizing about Marion’s hooters or something to while away the time.
A bigger Raiders of the Lost Ark plothole (and one that’s such an enormous elephant in the room that you forget there’s actually a room involved) is that, in the 1930s, Egypt was a British Protectorate. There were British soldiers all over the place, and they would certainly have noticed Nazi archaeological digs which involved lots of armed German soldiers.
Even if they said “That’s fine, we’ll let Jerry dig up parts of the desert for us, and the Bedouin are a bit restless so we won’t mind if they want to cart Mauser rifles and Schmeisser SMGs around with them” then I think HM Government might have something to say about running car chases and gun battles involving armed, uniformed German soldiers through the streets of a major Egyptian city.
The words “Diplomatic Incident” spring readily to mind, and that’s before a German U-boat starts intercepting civillian shipping in the area (That’s called “Privateering”, I believe). In short, the events of Raiders really should have ended up causing some sort of war between the UK & Nazi Germany; with the US being left seriously embarrassed (or even dragged in) by its role in the affair.
Oh, and in the shootout in Marion’s bar Indy switches from a Colt New Service revolver to a Browning Hi-Power semi-auto (as rare as rocking-horse excrement in 1936) and back again, despite never being shown with the HP before that scene or subsequent to it. And 1930s rocket launchers didn’t look at all like the RPG Indy threatens Belloq with near the end of the film, either.
That doesn’t change the fact it’s a great film, though.
Okay - my contribution to an already mentioned thing TNG: Finale is one nitpick and one plot hole:
[spoiler] Nitpick: The anomaly is getting bigger as it goes backwards in time due to anti-time. Fine - so why, as I stand watching it (going forward in time as I am) is it getting bigger on the view screen? Surely it should be shrinking. :dubious:
Plot hole: the anomaly was created by the tachyon beams of three Enterprises in three time zones converging on one point! :eek:
Actually no, it’s the beams of two Enterpises and one Pasteur, the future Enterprise never used a tachyon beam in the anomaly. So this whole idea of three beams in three time periods coinciding and creating the anomaly doesn’t really work, does it, as one wasn’t the same as the other two.[/spoiler]
[QUOTE=Don’t Call Me Shirley]
Doc would have undoubtedly drained the gas tank before burying the DeLorean in the mine, and taken great care to get all the fuel out of the fuel lines and engine. Do you know what would happen to gas after 70 years?
[/QUOTE]
No, actually I don’t. What *does *happen to gas after 70 years?
Not so much an explanation, but I am given to understand that diesel submarines of the era didn’t always run submerged, just mostly so. No sense in the extra wear and tear.
[QUOTE=MadTheSwine]
Not sure if it counts as a movie ,but I gotta mention The Stand.
“Captain Tripps” is a slow death, yet in the mini-series we see people that died while playing Ping-Pong and tending to their fields on a tractor,I’m sure there are other death scenes similar ,but can’t think of any right now.
Also, when the power is turned back on in Boulder, we see a blender spew its contents across the kitchen.Ok,I am near death,but a margarita sure does sound good right now.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t remember whether it was in the novel or the movie, or both, but a couple military types do mention that the virus is mutating as it travels to a form that kills less quickly, but just as surely. From a plotting standpoint, that makes sense as it gives the infected people a greater time window to infect others.
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
A bigger Raiders of the Lost Ark plothole (and one that’s such an enormous elephant in the room that you forget there’s actually a room involved) is that, in the 1930s, Egypt was a British Protectorate. There were British soldiers all over the place, and they would certainly have noticed Nazi archaeological digs which involved lots of armed German soldiers.
Even if they said “That’s fine, we’ll let Jerry dig up parts of the desert for us, and the Bedouin are a bit restless so we won’t mind if they want to cart Mauser rifles and Schmeisser SMGs around with them” then I think HM Government might have something to say about running car chases and gun battles involving armed, uniformed German soldiers through the streets of a major Egyptian city.
The words “Diplomatic Incident” spring readily to mind, and that’s before a German U-boat starts intercepting civillian shipping in the area (That’s called “Privateering”, I believe). In short, the events of Raiders really should have ended up causing some sort of war between the UK & Nazi Germany; with the US being left seriously embarrassed (or even dragged in) by its role in the affair.
Oh, and in the shootout in Marion’s bar Indy switches from a Colt New Service revolver to a Browning Hi-Power semi-auto (as rare as rocking-horse excrement in 1936) and back again, despite never being shown with the HP before that scene or subsequent to it. And 1930s rocket launchers didn’t look at all like the RPG Indy threatens Belloq with near the end of the film, either.
That doesn’t change the fact it’s a great film, though.
[/QUOTE]
First of all, agreed, it doesn’t spoil that it’s a great film.
Secondly, I have to say the reactions you have in mind from the British would’ve made a very interresting film as well!
And thirdly… ‘As rare as rocking-horse excrement’? Okay, that made me laugh!
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Not so much an explanation, but I am given to understand that diesel submarines of the era didn’t always run submerged, just mostly so. No sense in the extra wear and tear.
[/QUOTE]
How’s this for a plot hole: Indy had no idea the submarine wasn’t going to submerge. I’d have to be pretty suicidal to swim out to a submarine that was preparing for departure…
[QUOTE=Frazzled]
Speaking of BTTF, in part 3 the Delorian Doc Brown went back to in 1885 should have had some gas in the tank. Why not use that to give the Delorian Marty came back in enough gas just to get up to 88 and be on his way?
[/QUOTE]
I’m a few days late, but anyway…
I thought Marty’s DeLorean had a broken axle from driving in the desert. They had no way to repair it with 1885 technology.
I suppose he could have taken Doc’s DeLorean back to 1985, but then what does he use to get back from 1955 and go to 1885 in the first place?
[QUOTE=happywaffle]
How’s this for a plot hole: Indy had no idea the submarine wasn’t going to submerge. I’d have to be pretty suicidal to swim out to a submarine that was preparing for departure…
[/QUOTE]
I figure that at that point, Indy was operating on pure adrenalin and pissed-off-ness, without a lot of rational thought…
[QUOTE=Martini Enfield]
And 1930s rocket launchers didn’t look at all like the RPG Indy threatens Belloq with near the end of the film, either.
[/QUOTE]
I mentally edited that rocket launcher to look like a Panzerschreck, not that they existed in that timeframe either. But then, neither did flying-wing aircraft, though the Reich would look into some mighty weird designs before all was done.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Not so much an explanation, but I am given to understand that diesel submarines of the era didn’t always run submerged, just mostly so. No sense in the extra wear and tear.
[/QUOTE]
Actually they mostly ran on the surface. Submerged they went only a little over 5 knots. On the surface they were faster. Underwater they ran off batteries. At the time of the movie there was no war so it wouldn’t be hiding from anyone. They would run on the surface unless they wanted to dive when there was a particular vessel they were trying to avoid.
The bigger problem was mentioned above. If they were on the surface there would be people on deck. No reason to use the periscope if you could just look around with your own eyes.
[QUOTE=Morbo]
OK, what I’m looking for here are such egregious holes that we can’t enjoy the movie anymore, and I mean a quality movie.
[/QUOTE]
Well, there’s:
Okay, I’ve seen the movie only once (when it was released in 1989), so maybe I missed something, but there’s a scene where Batman is in the Batplane and he’s firing shots at The Joker and keeps missing, and then The Joker pulls out a handgun with an extra-long barrel and takes down the Batplane with one shot.
[QUOTE=Duhkecco]
The Joker pulls out a handgun with an extra-long barrel and takes down the Batplane with one shot.
[/QUOTE]
If “improbably excellent marksmanship” counts as a plot hole, we may as well just list every action movie in alphabetical order from here on out.
[QUOTE=Loach]
…The bigger problem was mentioned above. If they were on the surface there would be people on deck. No reason to use the periscope if you could just look around with your own eyes.
[/QUOTE]
I notice the U-boat plot hole every time I see this movie, to wit, either the boat submerges, or there would be lookouts topside. Either way, Indy would be screwed.
That being said, Loach, even when surfaced and with lookouts topside, submarines always keep a set of eyes on the periscope. This is because the scope has excellent visibility, being several feet higher than everyone else topside, it has built-in magnification optics, and it gives you another set of eyes scanning the horizon for contacts. The scope is also used to take bearings on contacts being visually tracked.
(In addition, modern periscopes have built-in night vision equipment, can record what they see, and can supply a video-feed for the benefit of others in the control room.)
