Mundane plot-holes you have noticed in films.
Independence day - See everyone knows the ending is ridiculous and that the aliens would never use the same operating system as us, but more importantly, after the aliens show up, Will Smith's girlfriend actually goes into work to strip, i mean, come on, what kind of a stripper has the work ethic to show up to work when theres fucking aliens invading earth?
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild | Report this
Twitter
Facebook
Last.fm
SoundCloud
MySpace
Friendster
RSS
my mate went to a strip bar on 9/11
I've never looked at him the same way since.
:D
Outrageous level of commitment to seeing boobs
he's a dawg
definitely one of these http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4308996
the lightouse moves in Shutter Island
A glass of water disappears at one point as well and a few other continuity gaffes
EXCEPT THEY'RE ALL DELIBERATE
Groundhog day
Why doesn't he just stay up all night, or keep trying much harder to leave the town? If he can learn French and advanced levels of Piano playing, he can hike out of a snowed in town.
He stays up all night at least once and just immediately starts the day again in bed.
Well, he should have kept on trying!
maybe she thought that if she could show off her impressive work ethic, as well as her gazorkers, the aliens might find room for her in their new world order?
I loved The Dark Knight.
But, you know the bit where the Joker invades the Bruce Wayne party and throws whatserface out of the tower windows, and Christian Bale jumps out to save her and they fall on the car, what does the Joker do next?
I mean, he's got this room full of rich socialites who he could kidnap, kill etc, but instead the film then jumps to a completely unrelated scene, so you have to assume the Joker just shrugged his shoulders and went on his merry way.
Which would be fairly consistent with his character ...
Not especially,
throughout the film he's not too fussy about indiscriminate killing.
A two or three second shot of the Joker walking out of the building would have left no room for doubt. Instead the film jumps to another scene which could be hours later and you have to fill in the blanks yourself - or come up with some excuse.
He warns everyone that an entire hospital full of people is going to get blown up.
While he may not be fussy about indiscriminately killing people, I wouldn't say that he's characterised as someone who needs to indiscriminately kill.
Maybe a bit annoying that there's no closure or definitive conclusion to that scene, but I wouldn't say it was out of character or a plot hole.
Agree to disagree then.
He failed to get what he came for.
It's already established that he thinks along very different lines so, yes, I don't see why he shouldn't just leave ready for the next time. It was as much about testing out Batman as anything else.
Waterworld
Surely there would have been better records of how the Earth ended up that way, dryland would have been found much sooner by more people, and their cigarettes definitely would have run out by the time of the film.
I don't think Waterworld's worthy of this.
more importantly: at the start, the Mariner is seen distilling fresh water from his own piss
isn't it easier to distill fresh water from salt water than urine?
no
Glad you've taken the time to think about this
really?
SFX magazine lied to me, then :'(
This is a good thread for finding out who is apparently so wracked with ADHD they can't even follow a 2 hour movie.
And thus who's going to be first against the wall in the upcoming revolution.
Says the person with undiagnosed aspergers:
http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/social/4309095#r6392155
Every Predator film, as much as I love most of them-
humans are really fucking weak and easy to kill.
apart from Arnie, Danny Glover and that bloke from the Pianist.
I got nothin'
But you know that bit in the Black Books episode with Simon Pegg in? Where he smashes up Bills muffin, then it's fine in the next scene? That annoys the hell out of me...
Continuity errors aren't the same as plot holes.
I'm aware
hence the 'I got nothin'
But thanks
:D
I lost concentration of a whole X-Files scene once
where Scully's handbag strap was over her coat collar in the front take and under it in the back take.
I NOTICED THIS TOO
lets hang out
the back of each other
I'll smash YOU!
I really hate it when this happens
In Modern Family the other day, she shoves the poncho back in the boot of the car but then a minute later, she pulls it out of the back seat of the car!! CRAZY!
don't eat muffins while i'm developing you!
^ fuck films
In I'm Alan Partridge when Alan is round at Dan's house and Lynne just walks straight into the sitting room...doesn't ring the door bell or anything.
Big
how come Tom Hanks doesn't have to show his ID to someone in HR when he starts work at the toy company?
or his qualifications? or his social security card?
He has to write down his SSN on the application
and then in the interview is told he's missing a couple of numbers.
Still doubt that that would be sufficient, but.
Three Men & a Baby
Ted Danson and Tom Selleck are both about 40, a successful actor and architect respectably, but live in a flatshare with Steve Guttenberg.
wrong.
Ted Danson in an UN-successful actor, and yet he lives in a penthouse with an architect. madness.
Ted Danson in an UN - successful actor!
well he's in adverts and B movies and stuff. He must have a bit of cash.
Either way, something is awry.
i think the word is JOBBING. he's a jobbing actor.
my friend is one of these and in no way can he afford a penthouse new york, probably not even in Luton.
good point
wrong.
How does Steve Guttenberg afford a flat while covering the rent of an unsuccessful actor and an architect.
who says he's covering their rent?
ANSWER ME
...
...it looks worse the longer you leave it, marckee...
either way
i am not sure there are many "career" "people" out there who think sharing a flat at the age of 40 is a good idea
manhattan is small though...
who says they're 40?
me
i do
how old do you think they are?
omg
from wikipedia: In August 2011, it was reported Adam Sandler was planning to remake the film, starring Chris Rock, David Spade and Rob Schneider
hmm, sounds...interesting?
i'm joking, this obviously sounds terrible.
and why isnt adam sandler going to be in it?
plausible deniability?
not very plausible though
someone needs to stop Adam Sandler from making films with his friends
nothing good ever comes out of it
#slowday
tom selleck was 42 in 1987
this proves something
Just seen this.
I was suggesting that an unsuccessful actor and an Architect won't earn enough to cover their share of the rent on such a place.
FINALLY
it's fine because all architects are loaded
huh?
Guttenberg pays the whole rent?
marckees probably reading a wikipedia entry that has been comedy edited.
Yeah, but...
...WHAT a flatshare :D
just three bachelors and a ghost child
having some beers and wearing sports jackets
In Pan's Labyrinth
why didn't the maid kill the fascist officer when she had the chance instead of, in the immortal words of Moe, just cut you a little?
because she's not a facist!
duh
she says "you won't be the first pig I've gutted" or words to that effect
the communists don't seem to have much problem with gunning them down and then later she has him killed in the coldest manner possible. Sorry, doesn't make sense.
I think you may have watched a completely different cut of those films.
he was pretty horribly scarred after that fight on Volcano Planet, tbf
Obi Wan's rapid aging is more problematic
I don't have a massive problem with them not 'recognising' the droids - they're mass produced consumer products, after all. I do have a problem with them being in it in the first place, awful, awful idea.
C3PO wasn't finished in the first films
he was still being made, hence no plating
He looks like Jay Spearing.
His appearance, given his age, is therefore perfectly plausible.
Right at the end of Ep 3 they've started building the Death Star
So that takes forever right, and then it gets destroyed.
Yet but ep 6 they've cranked out another one.
to be fair they havent finished it.
but still!
this wound me up as well...
darth was going crazy about the slow progress and i got the impression that it was his drive that really gave the project lefts, yet he shifts his focus onto other things later on and the productivity rate triples?
GAVE THE PROJECT LEGS
legs
and sorry geeks i meant to say darth vader, before you tell me there are lots of others darths
my old boss, upon episode II coming out, said;
Dart Tyranous? DARTH TYRANOUS? Why not just call him DARTH EVIL?
Darth Continent
maybe they learnt a few lessons on the first one to speed up building a 2nd
who's to say they weren't already building the 2nd one before the 1st one was blown up
I believe there are four years between A New Hope and Return of the Jedi
a bigger plothole is how the Rebel Alliance apparently have no moral qualms about blowing up a battle station that is still under-construction and likely being built by enslaved peoples.
or independent contractors
Attack of the Clones
Sorry but who the f*** ordered the clone army and why/what for, never reeeeaally properly explained (not to mention how they paid for 'em), was more "ooh here's a clone army", "marvellous, just in time to unleash a can of intergalactic whoop ass", "but some dead jedi bloke ordered them", "not to mention jango fett was hired by a sith lord, we could make a big deal of the jedi/sith conspiracy?" "oh what a mess, well, er... let's just make everything explode!"
see also
literally every plot point in the entire 3 prequels
the entire new trilogy is in essence a black plothole
and because the answer to everything is "George Lucas is a complete cretin" it's useless pointing out the massive problems with everything, unless your last name is Plinkett.
ok, point noted
Don't know if this cutting reply is worse than some fanboy/girl taking time to explain what actually happened in some book/comic/bloody game in the SW universe. I'm so over it, will stop wondering!
more fun than this was watching how the Expanded Universe writers
tried to fix all of George's little continuity errors.
you have a deeply unfortunate definition of the word "fun"
this is the least plot-hole-y thing said in this thread
No Mr Bond, I expect you to die
In an overly elaborate way that will allow you to escape whilst i swan off assuming everything is in order. Just shoot him in the balls gomdammit!
He actually talks his way out of death in that particular scene though.
They should have shot him in the balls earlier
The Human Centipede
all of it.
Well
it takes almost no time for the girls to go under when he drugs them but the polie turn up, drink the same thing, go away for a while, come back and then start to feel it.
Made me angry
police
THREAD PLOT HOLE
In Harry Potter he flies a car
Cars can't fly.
:'D
The Lost World
WHAT ATE THE BOAT CREW
your mum?
the t-rex?
bits of that are pieced from the first book i believe; where a load of raptors get onto a boat and eat the crew so maybe they forgot to re-write it to fit with the t-rex
the T-Rex was still in the hold, trussed up and drugged out.
how did the T-Rex get out of the hold, despite it's heavy sedation and being trussed up, get into the cabin, given that it's massive heid wouldnt have fit through the door, to eat the boat driver man, leaving his arm daintily draped over the steering wheel, then get back into the hold in time for the boat to crash into the dock and thereby allowing it to escape from the hold again.
totally ruined an already mediocre movie for me.
RUINED!!!! R U I N E D ! ! ! !
<runs out of room in tears>
and the dead guy had the control for the T Rex door in his hand
LITERALLY NO SENSE
I looked it up,
apparently in the original cut of the film you see a raptor jump off the boat when it crashes into the docks but they cut this out later because it obviously leads to more questions about a raptor loose in San Diego that never gets mentioned
I'm glad they cut it out, it makes much more sense this way!!!!!!!!
</Insincere Dave>
Is this a digitiser reference?
You absolute hero.
OH MY GOD
This literally bugs me every day of my life
literally bugs you
The internet implies that there was a missing scene where a bunch of Raptors got on the ship before it pulled away
and these killed the crew.
If that's right, what happened to them?
went for a swim?
Massive plot holes in Martha Marcy May Marlene that just destroyed the film for me
But it's not out yet so I'll shut up
Not a film, but in Friends
Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?
:D
this one might be a can of worms but
there are several moments in back to the future part 1+2 that don't quite make sense. i'll have a think about it, but i think one is that doc and marty should, in theory, exist TWICE in one time period. which i guess isn't a hole as such..
also how long can one have a machine gun battle in a car park
until the authorities show up?
AND
why would Libyan terrorists want to trade uranium - surely Libya would want as much uranium as it could get.
AND
If you were going to sell some uranium, would you really do it in a shopping centre car park? Bit public shirley?
HAVE YOU EVEN SEEN THE FILM?!!
He's a momo, ignore him!
but they do exist twice in the same period
Doc Brown has to avoid himself at the end of the 2nd one but ends up having to pass the 1955 him a wrench or something
do Libyan terrorists often hang around in small towns in America?
Has propaganda not taught you anything!
i think the flaw is that
there's no logical reason that the same entity would exist in two separate times. PLUS, there's no real evidence that the film even follows this theory - when doc sends his dog into the future (or back? i can't remember) and when marty travels, they completely disappear from the current time.
but...as you say, doc is seen to be in the same time with himself....which isn't possible....because...IF they are disappearing when they travel forward, then the time between now and THAT time they did not exist and therefore cannot exist in the future. same goes for jennifer and marty's children in 2015, how the hell do they even exist?
good point
it would only apply to going forward in time though, doc could invent the time machine in '85 and go back to '55 to see himself without it being a problem right?
I think the going forward in time thing might be explained by the fading photograph i.e cancelling out your own existence in the future isn't instantaneous (like it probably should be) but gradual to make it possible for you to fix what ever is preventing you from existing. Otherwise when Marty stops his parents from meeting he'd instantly cease to ever exist and wouldn't be able to bring them together
yeah it SHOULD be
because i mean if his parents don't fuck at the exact same moment that they previously did, marty would not be marty. at best, he'd look like marty and may even be called marty, but he would not physically be the same person. at worst, he'd be a girl called sarah.
and yeah, going back seems fine.
I don't understand this
using a specific example
marty and jennifer travel forward to 2015. in 2015, they find themselves as a family, with kids.
but, the time between 1985 (when they began the travel) and 2015 (where they end the travel) they were in the delorean. so if they were in the delorean, they couldn't have existed in the 85 - 15 world, making babies and working jobs.
surely
you have at least a couple of options when you're told that in 25 years time your kids will be in trouble.
1. travel in time to that point and get them out of the trouble.
2. look after your kids better so they don't grow up to be fuck-ups.
unless they are allowed to temporarily exist in the same time frame under the assumption that they still go back to '85 and live their lives exactly the same as they would've done regardless of what they now know about 2015 (which is obviously impossible)
yeah, an alternate timeline
the only trouble is alternate timeline's don't seem to happen, as is evident by the disappearance of doc's dog.
Of course multiple timelines happen in the film
It's just that in the case of the dog, we (audience) only get to see one of those timelines, because the story is focalised through the character of Marty.
i think i understand what you're saying
well, no, because the Delorean isn't a cryo-freezer
it doesn't take thirty years to get there. it's a time machine, it jumps forward instantaneously.
tbh the whole thing is flawed because the "you can change things!!!!" branch of time travel plots makes utterly no sense.
they never really explain how the delorean works
but i think we can basically assume that it is literally traveling through time, so with that in mind i don't see why marty and jennifer would still be living their lives in the 85 - 15 world. even if it is somehow "instant" the film makes absolutely no allusions to there being alternate timelines for the characters when they travel. as i said, they even kinda dispel that idea with the dog.
but then doesn't doc meet himself in 2015? jesus christ.
because it isn't stated that its only a one way trip?
say you leave at 8:00am on January 1st 1985, and go forward 30 years. you then go back, and you arrive - for arguments sake, six hours after you left, because it isn't *that*. You're only gone for six hours. You could stay weeks, years even, but you've arrived back only six hours after you left.
but how does the universe know that marty is going to travel back again in a few hours?
sure, he could, but as far as the universe is concerned when he's in '85 that's where he exists in the entire scheme of things, and likewise when he's in 2015.
BUT
i think you can argue that the future is a pre-determined timeline which would allow for marty to see himself in the future. but, if everything that will be is all there ever can be, then the entire trilogy is a giant waste of fucking time.
well, I said this up there, that the idea you can change the past has so many logical holes in it, I generally hate it as a plot device
Bttf works because its massively entertaining at the same time, and it isn't used as a plot device to get out of situations. unlike, say, Heroes post season-1, where EVERYTHING IS FIXED WITH TIME TRAVEL. fuck off.
I still don't really agree/understand where your other point is coming from, though. The 1985 Marty being in 2015 doesn't negate thirty years of time. It's been a while since I've seen the first film, but he travels back from 1955, doesn't he reappear a split second after he left, despite spending several days there? No reason travelling back in time from the future should be any different. It's actually an odd paradox, because he's several days older despite not having been away for that amount of time.
but what evidence do you have that marty as an entity continues to exist in 1985
when he is physically not in 1985 anymore? the only way that is feasible is if a copy of him is instantaneously put into position while he's away (in order to keep things going smoothly). this is obviously what you're supposed to subconsciously believe.
but it's problematic because (and i realise i'm really starting to sound like a broken record here, sorry) when doc sends the dog into the future for one minute, there is only one dog. the future dog. if the timeline creates a backup to preserve continuity then there should be two dogs. it's possible that the present time dog is just asleep in his doggy bed or some shit but the implication is that the present time dog is gone and future dog is here. so of course the same should be applied to the humans.
creating backups and preserving continuity?!
there is only one.
i never said that he continued to exist after he left, just that he came back and, by the evidence of the first film (which is the only one I've seen in the last ten years), arrived back in 1985 only seconds after he left, irregardless of how much time he spent in 1955.
so for those few seconds (if even that long), yes, he was no longer present in 1985.
but, at the same time, that doesn't mean that in going forward to 2015 he wasn't present for the entire of 1985 to 2015, just that he wasn't present for the period between leaving and returning. and he doesn't cease to exist, he just goes to a different time.
we're probably going to have to agree to disagree
but it doesn't matter how long he was gone in 1985. it doesn't change the fact that while he's in 2015, he has no existed between the years 1985 and 2015. you're assuming that the timeline knows that he came back in a matter of hours, but while he's in 2015 the timeline has absolutely no idea that he came back.
if he theoretically never returned from 2015, the world that he entered should be exactly the same as if he did return.
I'm with guntrip.
He travelled to 2015, saw future him, then travelled back to 1985, PICKING UP WHERE HE LEFT OFF, and continued living his life into the future, up to 2015 and beyond. I haven't seen the second in a while - does future Marty meet present Marty? And if so, does future Marty remember time travelling to 2015 many years ago? Because he should. And if he doesn't, then THAT is the plot hole.
youre missing the point
how can you assume Marty is gonna return to his time? If we dont assume that then as we are watching it the return journey to his time hasnt happened yet because hes still in the future so his future self shouldnt be there yet, his future self should only be there once marty has actually left that time and travelled back to his own.
What you are saying is thats its already predetermined that hes gonna travel back to his own time, if thats the case then he should be unable to change anything because his timeline is already predetermined.
If he didn't return to his time
then future Marty wouldn't be in 2015.
But he evidentally did, because he is.
CHEERS.
but...
the moment he first arrives in 2015, he HASN'T returned to his time yet. it doesn't matter that he does return, it doesn't change the fact that he has not done it yet, and therefore there is no logical reason for future marty to exist in 2015.
the only way it makes sense is if the timeline is somehow all-knowing and pre-determined. and as sharp_yet_blunt says, that would basically render the entire thing a massive waste of time.
No,
the only logical way (albeit, still paradoxical) is to make sense of it in terms of multiple universes and of continuity as a function of subjective experience not objective, self-identical time/space/universe.
the thing that confuses me about that
is which universe dictates the result of the timeline? are the alt. universes just there to provide continuity or do the events of them effect the overall timeline just as much as the primary universe?
i think i can get on board with the idea that we don't see the dog or marty (when he leaves a time period) because they continue to exist in the time they just left, albeit in an alt. universe that you're not physically being shown on screen. but to me that doesn't mean that future marty exists because the timeline knew '85 martin would return, it just means he exists because the alternate timeline preserved an alternate '85 marty and original '85 marty is seeing alternate marty in 2015 - BUT IF THAT'S THE CASE, it means we're seeing the marty from the alternate universe in the primary universe, which undermines the idea that the film isn't showing you the alternate universe.
Crispin I like your thinking.
It fucks up the film, though, and if ghostpony were here she'd probably explain how there's not ONE theory of time travel, there are multiple and so you have to accept the framework used by the film you're watching.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurTimeTravelIsDifferent
I was going to say that ghostpony would have a few things to say about this issue
"i think i can get on board with the idea that we don't see the dog or marty (when he leaves a time period) because they continue to exist in the time they just left". No, the dog doesn't continue to exist in the timeframe it left. Even on the simple version of timetravel that guntrip was running up ^there, that doesn't happen, because the dog is sent only 1 minute into "the" future. The dog effectively ceases to exist (from Marty's p.o.v.) for that 1 minute.
The Marty problem you're pointing out is different. It can be resolved, to an extent, by an understanding of multiple universes. Your question is how can Marty be old and have kids, etc., when he has traveled forward in time, and so couldn't have been around to grow old and have kids. guntrip's answer is that it's because Marty comes back to the moment after he left. Your counter is that when Marty's in the future there's no certainty that he is going to return to the moment he left; ergo, either everything is pre-determined (the universe dictates the result of the timeline), meaning the story was always going to end up the way it did (metaphor for Hollywood/mainstream cinema?), or there's a massive whole in the plot/theory of time travel underpinning the plot (standard mainstream/Hollywood cinema practice?).
One counter to that is provided by one version of multiverse theory (NB: I actually know nothing about multiverse theory; I'm just riffing on an idea): Marty jumps not just forward in time but to another universe — one of the universes (for their must be multiple such universes) in which he *did* come back to the moment after he left. In this situation, from the moment we know there's an old Marty with family, we know we're in such a universe, but we do not yet know (excepting the familiarity we have with film/narrative conventions) under what precise circumstances Marty returns. Consequently, the question of Marty's "success" also remains open. All that is certain is that Marty is in one of the many universes in which he was able to return.
There's all kinds of reasons why that answer, while resolving a whole bunch of paradoxes, is nevertheless unsatisfactory. Most significant is the question of Marty's return to *the* universe from which he departed. If it is to be the same universe from which he departed, then from the transcendental perspective (which is necessary in order to determine that it is in fact the same universe) the predetermination problem arises again: i.e. in that (original) universe Marty was always going to jump out of that universe at a particular time and then return moments later. Moreover, the future that he travels to isn't necessarily the future that belongs to his original universe.
Another version of the idea of multiverse would "resolve" that problem by effectively saying that Marty *doesn't* return to his original universe. For this version of multiverse, there are infinite universes, with a new universe being created at the moment of every single decision/action. Marty going into the future creates an entire new universe, separate from the one in which Marty *didn't* go into the future. For that matter, Marty deciding to wear jeans instead of shorts created a new universe different from the one in which Marty decided to wear shorts rather than jeans. And so the universe that Marty 'returns' to is actually the universe that was created by his traveling forward in time and then returning. On this view, the problem of predetermination is avoided because actions don't conform to the destinations of universes, but rather actions create universes. By the same toke, it's still pretty unsatisfactory because things happen simply because they happen, and there was never any possibility that they might not happen (which is just the flipside to predetermination, surely?).
So, after reading all those words (if you read them) here's the moral of the story: time travel without paradox is impossible, because both the notion of time being linear (and singularly so) and the notion of a transcendental, omniscient position from which we can examine events are essential to the common sense/rationality (i.e. the doxa) that is trying to make sense of time travel.
The other thing to remember is that I'm half cut, ignorant and largely just bullshitting, so nothing I say can be taken seriously.
oh, fuck me
that's a long post made longer by the super-skinniness brought on by the indentation.
i think if you want to start getting into multiverse theory
you're probably going above and beyond the level of understanding that is required to dismantle the mechanics of BTTF time travel. i'm not at all discounting your ideas, but they verge on the edge of some extremely complex theories - one being that time arguably does not exist in the way that we believe it does. we understand it in terms of the lineage of our existence, but to the universe the idea of time is not a necessity. we consider events and measure them by the chain reaction that created them, but to the universe there is not necessarily a point A to point B. in other words, there is an argument to be made that there is no past or future, only present.
i guess i'm more interested in the internal logic of BTTF, but i might be fishing in an empty lake.
Understandable
The internal logic of BttF has to be more interesting than the ramblings of the tipsy madman who wrote the comment preceding yours.
i think you;ve all spent far too much time discussing
Back to the Future.
go outside for a bit, get some air
Cars
If there aren't any humans in the Cars world, who makes the cars? Are they icky 'organic' cars? Do they pump (and not just for gas)?
Home Alone
Great film, but come on burglars - those traps are rubbish. Just get the kid and fuck him up.
home alone has so many
yet, one of my all time favourites.
this one is quite mundane but it always bugged me that the wet bandits fell for the "they're home!" trick when kevin sets up the infeasibly complex pully system with the dancing michael jordan and blowup dolls that they just happen to have. but i mean, it would be incredibly obvious from the outside that it wasn't real people moving around.
and home alone 2
well, obviously he would not be allowed to book a hotel room. they'd keep him there, eventually call the police and the police would be aware that he was missing, his mother would turn up and be megamad at him, fly him to paris in time for a shitty french christmas. movie done in 25 minutes.
Also, just the general thing of his mum forgetting his existence.
That'd set him up for a lifetime of pschological issues and either lead to extreme depression/suicidal tendencies/feelings of inadequacy or turn him into a serially murdering psychopath.
Home Alone 3 is the most true to life. The kid's sick, I have to pop out for two minutes, so I'll just leave him sleeping like a cheeky, irresponsible parent. I mean, it's not like a team of international criminals are lurking in the neighbourhood to break in and try to kill him.
the idea is that the family is so massive and they're in such a rush, it's easy for kevin to get left behind
but in reality she wouldn't rely on someone to count heads, she'd just look and see. it also doesn't help that kevin is the most rambunctious, charismatic, trouble-making one of the lot and she would have suspected his absence long before the realisation on the plane.
that said i do enjoy the double bluff on 2
when you think they've forgot him in exactly the same way but then OH NO THERE HE IS
only to somehow end up somewhere fucking else. kid's got a gift.
Wee prick.
I like to pretend that Party Monster is a direct sequel to Home Alone
and the result of such psychological issues
Sean Bean is almost unkillable in GoldenEye
First he gets chemical weaponed. He gets shot, beaten up, exploded, the fucking works. Then he falls like 100 foot onto a giant satellite.
Still NOT DEAD it takes the entirety of the gigantic satellite falling on him to kill him
haha
i remember on the game he's holding natalya hostage and you have the option to shoot him in the head but if you do you fail the mission. it was often more satisfying to kill him swiftly and fail then to let him get away and pass.
Unreliable narrator
probably didn't happen how it was shown onscreen
In the commentary with Chuck Palahniuk and Jim Uhls (screenwriter) on the film
Chuck mentions that he doesn't have that happen in the book because he couldn't see how it would work. Uhls just makes a sort of 'mmm' noise.
There's actually a bigger plothole, also mentioned on that commentary but never resolved: at the start the camera shows the truck with the bomb being UNDER the building they're in, but they're not in a building that's going to be destroyed. Whoops.
Pretty sure the point is that he re-sets the bomb and I think you see it ticking down.
Karate Kid, the original
When Mr Miyagi signs Daniel up for the competition under the fake club Miyagi Do Karate, why is no one like "Never heard of that, where's your dojo? What are your credentials?". I mean, presumably this competition is run by the local karate "board" or whatever who would know all the dojos in the area but no one ever questions some little Japanese fella coming in with his only student from his hastily cobbled together "dojo".
I figure that since the competition is sponsored by that evil guy's dojo, he pulls some strings to make sure Daniel is accepted (cos he wants his guy to defeat him).
Myagi is to all intents and purposes, Yoda.
so the answer is- Jedi Mind trick.
his perception of things is dream-like though
so he selectively forgets things or something
when Cole's talking to him, he's lucid, because that fits with his belief that he's still alive. Any stuff that doesn't fit with that belief, he either selectively forgets or fuzzily overlooks.
I think if you're happy to accept that ghosts exist,
the idea that those ghosts have a faulty perception of events seems a more mundane issue
And he goes to work every day
wtf
See my issue with Sixth Sense was the part when the kid goes off
with Bruce Willis on the bus to visit that little girl.
Why doesn't his Mother say anything? The kid disappears all day, travels on the bus to somewhere, by himself and then goes home. No questions asked. Also, wouldn't the kid talk about his therapist to his Mother? Surely it must have come up in conversation? And she would have questioned who this 'therapist' was and who is paying for his time and the rest...
First complaint is fair
The second on though... the kid knows his therapist is a ghost surely, so he's not going to talk about him to his mum.
Did he?
I thought he tried to avoid ghosts because they scared him? As far as I could tell, he didn't think he was a ghost.
yeah, I guess there's no direct statement either way
I always just read it that way
gremlins
no feeding them after midnight. after midnight is every possible moment of time forever.
^this always bugged me.
I assume it means "after midnight but before dawn" or something but it's not made properly clear.
also, how do you clean a Mogwai if you can't get them wet?
What about if they have a drink - do loads of mogwai grow inside of them and burst out. Oh the horror.
you get them dry-cleaned
The genetic make-up of the mogwai seems to beg for animal cruelty.
Don't feed them, don't wash them, lock them away in darkness.
Also, the question 'how do you clean a Mogwai?' is making me wonder how Stuart Braithwaite gets his head so shiny.
He owns one of those machines
that clean bowling balls and sticks his head in that every 3 days.
Sand baths, like a chinchilla.
Am I too late?
Just googled that phrase thinking it was the lyrics to a song.
Can imagine it being sung by someone like Tom Wait.
The thing about the end of Independence Day that confused me
was why bother uploading a virus to the mothership if you're just going to blow it up? How do the ship shield mechanisms work? If they just blew the mothership up then the other ships' shields would carry on working independently, but if the mothership switches them off and THEN blows up, they can't reactivate them? Er....?
doesn't the virus get transmitted to all the other ships before it blows up?
or something?
The smaller ships are controlled by the mothership, apparently.
So they need to upload the virus to the mothership and have it broadcast to all the smaller ships, and then after doing that they set off a nuke. That destroys the invasion force AND leaves the smaller ships disorientated and shieldless.
Honestly, Jeff Goldblum lays this all out.
and, without the central mothership, they're unable to formulate a response to the virus
basically it's a treatise on why top-down organisation doesn't work.
MAN, that film is right wing!!!!!
Ah okay, that all makes sense
Couldn't really remember.
To be honest that raises you in my eyes.
Listen Buzz Killington,
just be quiet and enjoy the explosionness
We watched a film that was financed (I think) by Beenie Man
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383607/
^^^Rude Boy: The Jamaican Don
anyway - it's just awful throughout BUT - at the end, when they do those captions telling you what happened to everyone after the film, it says "MC Julius testified against the crime boss and was placed on the witness protection programme. He was relocated to Venezuela where he's currently seeking stardom as a singer."
SURELY that would be one of the caveats of the witness protection service...not to do that.
This is the film with the "Kiss Me Shoes" scene
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n0R-HZhINg
Cracking stuff!
hahahaha
Aladdin
The genie has been stuck in his lamp for 10,000 years, yet makes reference to, amongst others, the 3rd century, Groucho Marx, and Jack Nicholson.
because Aladdin is actually set 10,000 years into the future
and the so-called Genie is a 22nd century terraforming V.I. Aladdin has no idea what he has done unleashing that thing from its Asimov principles.
:D
So much gold in this thread. How did I miss it first time round?
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
they need to revive Optimus Prime, so they use a magic device apparently capable of reviving Transformers to revive another Transformer to find out how to revive that first Transformer.
Also, the bit where they talk about crossing the Egyptian/Jordanian border. There is no Egyptian/Jordanian border. Israel is in the middle.
And also the bits where the plot makes no sense, the location continuity is a mess, characters disappear for large chunks of time, and it's always early morning or daybreak.
Love that film <3
Also, this film makes out that Karnak Temple is pretty much next to the pyramids in Giza
NO IT ISN'T!! It's 400 miles away in Luxor. Bloody Hollywood twats thinking no-one knows these things.
Can we do TV?
WWE Raw, the whole show is a massive plot hole
A lot of things in wrestling drive me barmy
When Shawn Michaels used to "tune up the band" before Sweet Chin Music. Congratulations on informing your opponent what you're about to do. Any sensible person would just roll out of the ring. But in wrestling logic, you stumble straight into his oncoming foot.
I think the biggest "plot hole" though is that authority figures constantly get merked by the wrestlers instead of just going "You're fired, pal".
I remember thinking as a kid that it seemed less like a job and more like somewhere you just turned up to randomly to sort out your differences.
In the Bourne Identity
How does Matt Damon not only survive falling 4 storeys in a stairwell by landing on a pretty thin body that was falling less than a foot in front of him?
THIS.
Most annoying scene ever.
Independence Day
The alien spaceship is compatible with Windows 95.
*Mac
buffalo 66
just have a piss in the street man
that fits with his character though
in Groundhog Day near the end
at the party when Bill is playing up a storm on the piano the teacher says joyfully "and he's MY student!"
well hang about you only met him for that one day (that same first/ only full day he's having over and over in the town) so he must have already been amazing at piano when you met him that afternoon! so why the exclamation "he's My student!" ?? that would only work if he'd been crap to start wih and she'd taught him for weeks/months/years.
anyone figure that out?
everything he does that day is to help people
he probably went in, pretended to be rubbish, and got miraculously amazing across the lesson.
I just thought that was the joke
That she was trying to wrongly lay claim to teaching him his excellent piano skills. I mean technically he is HER student, but people aren't to know she has only been teaching him one day.
Except she did teach him his amazing piano skills.
He's there for 10,000 days or something. He spent a lot of time learning from her!
hm
a long lesson then? i .. guess. makes as much sense as anything else i can come up with.
If Buzz doesn't think he's a toy why does he stop moving when Andy is around?
i think the general idea behind this
is that while buzz doesn't think he is a toy, he is - and to play dead around andy is a reflex. if you're working on the assumption that toys are in fact alive, it does make some sense that they would have to have natural instincts to play dead around humans, because none of us have ever seen one alive (except as documented in the documentary Toy Story)
completely inane TV plothole
on seinfeld. but it's so gaping and absurd, it makes me angry.
season 8 - the package. two separate plots, george trying to entice the camera shop lady with risque pictures of himself; jerry kramer and newman fighting over jerry's stereo fraud. newman wants leverage over jerry to prove the fraud, manages to find it by OBTAINING THE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE PHOTO PLACE WHICH INCLUDES A PICTURE OF JERRY FIXING THE ALREADY BROKEN STEREO.
1. how the fucking christ does newman know that george is having a roll of film developed that might have pictures he can use for leverage? it's just baffling
2. how would newman be able to just walk in and confiscate the photographs like he's the FBI. this one i don't care about as much.
i know it's a sitcom but this would never of happened under larry david's watch.
In the poltergeist film
there's a bit where the DAD is talking to the ghost inspectors telling them about his family and he's all like.
----------- there's my wife who is 31 yrs old and then there's my kids - the oldest is 16 ------------
so in poltergeist the dad is officially a paedophile
actually - i just looked this up to check
When Steve Freeling first meets with the university paranormal specialists, he states that his wife, Diane Freeling, was "32" at the time, and their eldest daughter, Dana, was "16". Thus, Diane was only sixteen years-old when she gave birth to Dana.
still - that's a bit close
it's art as moral commentary
their being haunted by evil spirits is poetic retribution for the wicked pre-mature (and presumably pre-marital) sex and general sexual deviance.
yeah i read that as well as i was looking it up
i don't buy that at all.
I think that's a bullshit explanation
really?
I was joking.
was Spielberg going through a bit of dodgy phase back then?
Raiders (1981) backstory about Indy shagging Marion when she was barely legal.
Poltergeist (1982) . . .
Marion shagged the dog?
yeah really
i don't think it's the official explanation, but some people read that into it
well I guess I was half-satirising a form of narrative critique
so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that someone has already done it in all seriousness.
Pretty much every horror film is basically saying: "Have sex? Get killed you dirty, dirty slut," aren't they?
stop projecting Theo
Old Dogs
I'm not talking one or two plot holes here – this thing is pissing large amounts of plot, like a sieve. Barely any of it makes sense. Recommended, if you like laughing.
how did this get made covered it
http://www.earwolf.com/episode/old-dogs/
worth a listen
I just did a few days ago, so funny.
Black Books
the one where they are "house-sitting" for someone, drink the insanely expensive wine and then they have to make wine, instead of, you know, taking one of the the cheap wines and pouring it into the expensive bottle. The writers could have at least have them accidentally smash every wine bottle in the house, as there were hundreds, and establish that every shop within miles was shut.
i think its just supposed to be drunken logic, obviously they weren't in their right mind when you see the stuff they put in the wine
Yeah that's what I thought.
A lot of the jokes on Black Books come from them doing ridiculous things due to drunkenness when anyone sober and rational could have fixed things instantly.
Seems reasonable enough, doesn't spoil the episode.
stand corrected
This isn't really a plot hole as such, but I just thought of it while playing Arkham City
You know how Batman's villains are always really sarcy about him? Like "Oh yeah, as if you can beat me, you're proper shit, pal". This makes no sense to me considering they spend half their lives getting merked by him. Is it just because they're mental? You'd think after the 800th time that Penguin got his face pummelled into the floor, he'd go "Actually, fair enough, you're alright at this superhero lark."
It's just like wherever the story falls in the canon, they all seem to treat him as if he's some fresh faced kid who's being a bit of a have a go hero rather than someone who has consistently shown that he can beat the shit out of you.
in related Batman bullshit
in Batman & Robin, both Batman and Robin have nipples on their costumes, but Batgirl has no nipples on hers.
otherwise: watertight.
The whole sequence at the start, right, where they fight Mr Freeze in an art museum
and there's a dinosaur skeleton there
a dinosaur skeleton, in an art museum
it's only there so Mr Freeze can make a lame pun
a lame pun about the dinosaurs being killed by the ice age
the dinosaurs weren't killed by the ice age
there's a dinosaur skeleton in an art museum
so Mr Freeze can make a pun
which isn't even historically accurate
I love Batman & Robin.
also, Batman credit card:
where do the bills go?
I've never seen it.
I saw Batman Forever so I couldn't see how it was worth going through that sort of torture again.
it's a substantially 'worse' film than Batman Forever
but about 400x more entertaining as a result. you should watch it at least once.
Guntrip + Crispin:
Don't ever watch Primer.
Cntl + F "Matrix". NOTHING??!?!?!!?
This whole film is flawed beyond belief.
Fucking wicked but flawed in every way. Too many to mention. I'm sure you can guess them.
Cheers.
Hah, yeah, good call.
The most obvious being that, if you're going to feed humans food and then use them as a power source, why not just cut out the middleman and use the energy in the food directly?
how much bioelectric energy can be farmed from custard though.
realistically.
what bothers me most about the matrix films is the underground rave scene, the acoustic dynamics for the scene were totally unrealistic.
Yeah but even if it's not that good an energy source it's going to be pretty depleted by converting it to power through humans.
If it's that important then just hook up a pig's heart to a set of intestines or whatever, it's just stupid. Especially considering they also appear to have access to nuclear fusion technology.
Also: Why give the humans the technology inside the Matrix to allow them to escape? Why not put them into a society where they'd still be content (say, the 70s or 80s, when computer literacy and hacking was still a rare skill) instead of one where they can learn how to combat the machines once they're awake?
you know that whole thing near the end of the second film, right,
where Neo fries one of the robot spider things in The Real World?
at the time, I was utterly convinced that was a build up to a reveal that The Real World was actually another subset of the Matrix, designed to keep those of a 'rebellious' nature in check, to not smother their natural tendencies and to make them feel like they're working against something - hence why Neo was able to do that, AND it would've made sense in context of the flaw you're pointing out here.
But, no, Neo is just fucking magic irl as well. Thanks, WACKowski Brothers.
Also, I know there's a reeeeeally long discussion about Back to the Future above
but just to add...
In the first film, Marty wishes he had more time to save Doc from getting killed by Libyans, and then realises he's in a time machine! So he then gives himself and extra TEN MINUTES.
You'd give yourself a fucking hour at least. Yeah. Thanks.
That's such a common plot conceit though.
They do it in Harry Potter too with the watch; there shouldn't be any dramatic tension because if they fuck it up THEY CAN JUST GO BACK IN TIME AND TRY AGAIN.
Madagascar
They're all in crates with plenty of holes for air, and get violently thrown overboard yet all crates somehow land with the air-holes above the water level.
Plus, aren't they being shipped from New York? So their boxes manage to get all around the cape of good hope and back up to Madagascar before hitting land? Hmm.
Through the Suez Canal, innit
ok then, if they're going to Kenya
and have indeed gone through the suez canal, they'd be heading in a southerly direction. So why did the penguins do an about-turn in their quest to get to Antartica? They would have been heading that way anyway!
Great bump
No idea whether it is above - I'm not reading it.
The Rock. So Sean Connery breaks them back into Alcatraz by ding his breakout in reverse. Right?
OK so they get to that room where Sean has to roll through the furnace thing as he's memorised the timing of the outbursts of flame, and then once on the other side, walks round and open a door to let them in.
Why would he need to know the timings of the flames to have broken out, wouldn't he have just opened the door as he was going in the opposite direction.