Stupidity: Why on earth would the prisoners gang up on Hancock in the prison yard and threaten him with violence? They know who he is, and they know he is an invulnerable superhero and could take everyone of them down painfully with one hand. Even those who don't have personal experience of him would know from the media reports that he cannot be beaten by a human being. Don't tell me they think he is a reformed character or that he has somehow been 'weakened' by his imprisonment - they continue attacking him AFTER he has violently punished two, brutally humiliating two of them for merely threatening him - and they hurt themselves hitting him even when he just stood still and took it. Basic prison mentality - do not attack an opponent that you cannot beat. Losing a fight means losing status, losing face, and in a hellhole prison like the one in which Hancock is incarcerated, that can be - and often is - fatal.
Stupidity: After Josh runs away from home after being turned into an adult, nothing seems to be done about his "disappearance." The only indication that he is missing is his picture on the back of a milk carton. There's no flyers about him missing. No mention of his disappearance in any newspapers or TV news about his mom saying that he's been "abducted" by a stranger. Even when Josh writes a letter home, he uses the actual address of where he's staying, but no cops turn up at his door after his mom receives the letter.
Stupidity: When a cop goes to Kevin's house after being requested by police, he simply knocks on the door and after a few seconds walks away assuming no ones home. Had he actually bothered to announce himself as a cop, Kevin would have opened the door and he would have been found safe.
Suggested correction: Some people just aren't good at their job or are too lazy. The cop didn't like the idea of being sent on a possible fake call and didn't put in the extra effort. Or he was simply waiting for someone to ask who it was before identifying himself. Plus the cop would have had no idea Kevin was hiding and not answering the door because he was scared nor that saying he was the police would get him to answer the door, he could have simply thought a kid left alone would answer the door to anyone.
Even if he thought it was a fake call, he still should have identified himself. By doing this, he could have confirmed that Kevin was indeed left alone.
And the script could have been written a 100 different ways to prevent Kevin from being left home alone, but that doesn't mean there's a plot hole or movie mistake.
Creating series of silly explanations for obvious mistakes/plotholes never resolves them. He should have identified himself regardless of the circumstances.
Exactly.
Perhaps the officer's failure to identify himself (as well as other deficiencies in the way he responded to the call) would more accurately be classified as a "character mistake"? This may result in fewer criticisms (corrections) while not negating the "stupidity."
Maybe it should be. Because he acted much too unprofessionally for a police officer.
Stupidity: When Charley goes to Evil's house, he asks him how to protect himself from vampires. Since Charley is such a huge fan of Fright Night and watches it all the time, he should already know everything to protect himself from Jerry.
Suggested correction: Being a fan of horror films in general and watching Fright Night on TV doesn't necessarily give someone expert knowledge of how to fight vampires. In fact, not every vampire movie is consistent with rules (including this one) and it is far from stupid to consult a friend who knows more than you about the subject. Think about it like this: If you watched every comic book movie that was made and every TV show based on comic books, then found out Galactus was real and you had to fight him, you wouldn't ask your friend who was a comic nerd for advice?
Stupidity: Barbara and Adam can obviously interact with physical objects (the statue horse, holding the door shut, etc.) but when trying to scare the Deetz's they tried visual stunts rather than throwing or moving objects.
Suggested correction: Barbara and Adam are not aggressive, intimidating people. Maybe they could have thrown and moved objects, but that would be almost violent. They would rather try a few visual stunts, instead of possibly hurting someone and/or damaging something in the house.
I respectively disagree with this. One of the visual tricks Barbara and Adam tried was her holding a bloody knife over his decapitated body, that in itself would have been violent and aggressive if they had been seen.
But they weren't violent and aggressive. They weren't threatening violence or aggression to anyone. They didn't commit an aggressive or violent act in front of anyone. They were just trying to scare them, just like wearing the sheets earlier.
Suggested correction: They first off didn't really understand how to interact with the physical world and secondly they didn't realise yet they were invisible.
I'm not sure the point of this correction because we see none of this is true. Barbara picks up a physical object and moves it without thinking about it. Then she looks at herself in the mirror with the horse and sees she doesn't have a reflection.
I have to agree. Even if Adam and Barbara couldn't be seen, the noose that Barbara "hanged" herself with or even the knife she was holding still should have been seen as they are physical objects and a knife, to the Deetz's, would be floating in midair and would probably scare them off.
Stupidity: Mrs. Doubtfire used the bathroom without first locking the door, enabling Chris (or anyone else) to walk in on her. A man who is dressed as a woman and doesn't want anyone to find out would make sure the bathroom door was closed and LOCKED. (01:07:09)
Suggested correction: Daniel is in his own house, and he may be used to using the bathroom without locking the door. Besides, he probably only thought he was going to be in there for a short time.
Stupidity: During the execution scene when Carina is on the gallows with a noose around her neck, the plot depends on Henry being able to get to her before she is dropped through the trap door. However, there is so much slack in the hanging rope that during the chaotic fighting, when Carina is left unattended, she could easily have stepped off the small trap door and onto the solid flooring that is inches away. Instead, she continues standing there, waiting to be rescued.
Stupidity: When the trolls are trapped in Chef's cage, Smidge is small enough to slip through the bars and could've easily escaped.
Stupidity: It's stated that Imhotep will fear cats until he has fully regenerated and two different scenes show him fleeing in terror at the sight of a cat. Despite this, none of the characters that Imhotep is trying to kill that are fully aware of his weakness even think to have a cat with them at all times.
Stupidity: Beck wants to kill Peter's friends because they know his secret. Instead of using Edith to attack them directly with a drone strike, or using his illusion technology to lead them into the path of a train like he did with Spider-Man, he instead has a henchman drive them onto a bridge and leave them in the path of his next Elemental attack. Because absolutely nothing is forcing them to stay on the bridge, they all casually walk off the bus and out of immediate danger. It is unfathomable that a man as intelligent and resourceful as Beck would take such an idiotic approach, especially considering all he had at his disposal and how desperate he was.
Suggested correction: He wanted it to seem like they were killed in the Elemental attack because it was cleaner. If they were killed by a drone it would be much more suspicious than being killed in the disaster. Once the plan goes wrong, he does simply send an Edith drone after them. If it wasn't for Spider-Man's timing, he would have been successful as well.
But that is the major problem, and why I think it was an egregious mistake in the movie. The plan "goes wrong" because it was idiotic. So idiotic that it is unrealistic that Beck, a highly intelligent person, would have made such a glaring oversight. Leaving the kids on the bridge but not trapping them at all allowed them to make an easy escape.
I think the point is that Beck thinks he is the smartest person in the room and that this plan is going to work. Should he take into account MJ and co's free will, yes, but he is so maniacal (and not thinking rationally) that it does not cross his mind. This is proven by the fact that as his plan is failing around him that he still wants his suit pressed and ready to meet the Queen because it will work out in the end in his mind. Also, to your point, having them walk in front of a train or walk off the bridge, would not make him a hero. He needed real casualties and Peter's friends were the place to start. Finally, in the sequence showing Beck and his team preparing for the attack, he was focused on the theatrics of the attack and, again, thought the size of it alone would work (he wanted it bigger, scarier, more forceful).
Suggested correction: Fury is well aware of the drone system (he berates Peter for misusing it earlier). If Beck simply utilised EDITH to kill the students, it would give away that Beck was using the drones for his own gain. Once Fury was dead, he could have used EDITH had the original plan failed, but he certainly couldn't do it until after Fury (and potentially other SHIELD agents) had been taken out. He was going to attack London no matter what, so he took the opportunity to take out Ned, MJ and Betty at the same time.
This doesn't stop him from using a targeted drone strike to kill the kids, he was planning on using it to kill Fury anyway. The fact that he fails in his strike against Fury is irrelevant to the fact that he needed those kids dead and decided to take a round-about way of accomplishing this goal. Again, he doesn't have to use a drone strike, he is perfectly capable of using the illusion technology to force the bus off a cliff or into some other immediate danger. Having a henchman drive the bus to a bridge and hope the kids are dumb enough not to escape danger when literally nothing is forcing them to just stand there and be killed is ridiculously idiotic.
Suggested correction: Characters, even intelligent ones, are allowed to make bad tactical decisions. Real-life history is replete with examples. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't make it a plot hole.
True - this was originally submitted as "stupidity", which is slightly different, but this seemed like such a massive oversight that it qualified as a plot hole.
Suggested correction: Beck's intentions were to make it look like the kids were killed in the attack by the monster. Had he just killed them with a drone out right, it would have obviously looked like murder and foul play bringing in more investigations and potential problems for him.
But again, he doesn't need to use a drone strike he can use the illusion technology to trick them into an accident. Even what he chooses to do (just leaving them on the bridge) would have also been fine had he trapped them there at all. Just leaving them there without trapping them is so stupid it is unbelievable. It's like leaving someone on train tracks but not tying them up.
Suggested correction: He was an insane person and wasn't thinking fully rationally.
Stupidity: The bad guys should have just shot Paul and his backup during the standoff rather than risking another impediment.
Stupidity: During one of the test drives, the hook that Hiccup uses to fasten himself to Toothless gets bent, so he takes Toothless to the blacksmith to cut the line. There are two ways he could have easily avoided this: He could just unhook the saddle, take that to the blacksmith and cut himself loose, or he could just untie the leather strap. What he does here is needlessly risky and just there for his awkward conversation with Astrid.
Stupidity: When Gaz tries to steal a jacket and Dave, who works as security, catches him in quite a dramatic manner they are seen by other employees. Dave lets Gaz go because he is a friend. But the next day both stroll together through the shop as if nothing had happened, with no enquiries or follow-up from the other employees. (00:59:30)
Stupidity: After the Slick devours Laverne, Randy jumps into the water and swims for shore with the Slick following. Even though Randy made it to shore, he stops and turns to confront the Slick, screaming that he beat it. When Randy turns around, the Slick immediately envelopes him. If Randy had just got up and started running instead of facing the Slick, he would have lived.
Suggested correction: This is a deliberate movie making technique to make the audience think the character has escaped but at the last second a surprise is thrown in. It's the same as hanging over the body of the killer. It doesn't come under stupidity.
Yes, it does. In any movie where someone comes face to face with either a supernatural enemy or even a regular one, confronting it is extremely stupid because the character could have simply walked away and made it to safety. The character confronting the killer is stupid because they'll always be killed. Better to do the smart thing and run as far and as fast as possible.
A example of a valid stupidity entry is an astronaut taking his helmet off when in space because he's an expert and knows better. A stupid person doing something stupid is considered a stupidity entry (which is essentially a plot hole writers use to move the story in a particular direction it wouldn't have gone otherwise). A character making the wrong choice because they underestimate the situation isn't a minor plot hole, in real life people underestimate opponents all the time, and movies exploit that all the time in their plot development (i.e. Apollo underestimating Rocky).
Suggested correction: Randy's decision isn't what constitutes a "stupidity" mistake. Stupidity mistakes are minor plot holes, which means characters can act stupid. Plus, when Randy gets to shore he's worn out so he tries to catch his breath. He then says he's won because he under estimated the Slick's ability to get him (which would fall under the category of "celebrating too early").
Put yourself in Randy's place. If you're friends were eaten by a huge slick like monster and you were swimming to shore with it chasing you, after making it safely to shore, would you want to turn around to confront it. No. That would be stupid because confronting it will certainly get you killed the moment your back is turned. The smart thing to do would be to keep running. Randy facing it was very stupid. Had he done the smart thing and kept going after he made it to shore, he would have survived. Stupidity killed him. Pure and simple.
First off, you said it would certainly kill you once your back is turned, which means if you're running away, your back is turned and if you confront it, your back isn't turned. But, he never tried to confront it. He just celebrates beating it. However, Randy thought he was safe once on land because he thought the creature couldn't attack him or reach him, so in Randy's mind he wasn't doing anything stupid. He thought he was safe, he thought he won. He was tired and sat to rest. But that's part of his character and his character traits. But, acting stupid isn't a "stupidity" mistake. Otherwise movies like "Dumb and Dumber" would just be thousands of stupidity mistakes because stupid characters are acting stupid. Now, if Randy knew the creature could kill him in water and he turns to celebrate his victory, or stops to rest, in the water, that could be a "stupidity" mistake since his character was already shown to know he can't stop in the water and the writers ignored what was already established as his character. Stupidity mistakes just are minor plot holes that go against already establish character traits or established facts/statements in the film.
Not only that, but, Randy was acting stupid since he chose to face it rather then run.
If you re choosing to say its a stupidity because they choose to fight rather than run then that's a moot point because you wouldn't have a movie in the first place! Movies get a degree of latitude when it comes to reality (people can be shot 7 times and still walk away as the credits roll) so rather than stupidity, this is under slightly suspended reality of how an actual person would behave. In this segment, we're talking about an oil slick with a mind of its own. 100% reality has to take a back seat where plot forwarding is concerned.
Stupidity: Spoiler. The protagonist is a trained and competent nurse, paired with one of the greatest murder mystery writers. Neither finds strange in the slightest that after jabbing his vein with a dose of drugs 30 times the norm he is absolutely fine, not just conscious but even able to concoct on the spot a convoluted plot, speaking normally and quite at length, no trouble at all. He should be dead "in 10 minutes" sure, but it's not a time bomb. You'd think one would not be so blasé about slitting their own throat and the other would have to notice how amazingly unaffected and lucid the other appears to be minutes later. Not to mention that his plan would have never worked with the toxicology report, which should be routine in a suicide case also to assess the mental state of the person who left no note or anything behind.
Suggested correction: It is explained that the drug overdose will kill Harlan in 10 minutes based on the dosage. The implication is that Harlan's heart will stop, not that he will become gradually and obviously sick over those 10 minutes. Regardless, based on what they believe will happen, even if they did notice that Harlan wasn't getting sick they wouldn't have the time to test that theory. The fact that neither Marta nor Harlan thought about a potential toxicology report is a pretty major part of the plot, and it is perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. The plot was hatched on the spot within a few minutes and there are several holes in the plan that drive the story throughout the film. Although a brilliant man and a great writer, Harlan simply didn't think of everything.
She explicitly says "You'll feel symptoms in 5" and when he shuts her up putting a hand on her mouth she says "We have 6 minutes."Then his daughter interrupts them and more time is wasted. By the time when he begins his convoluted explanation of the big plan he should have already been disoriented, sweaty and the whole gamut leading to his respiratory failure. And he goes on for minutes after that. It's very true, it moves the plot along, but by what they say themselves (which is from I understand not medically accurate and contradicted also by what happens later in the movie with the second death) they should have realised that time has passed with nothing happening. You could even say it's Rian Johnson's intentional deconstruction of the artificial nature of the whoddunit contrivances! But also, just saying, one of those "Stupid actions and decisions people take in movies, which no-one would ever do in real life."
Even taking that into account, what you are saying is Harlan should have said "Hmm, a few minutes have passed and I haven't felt any symptoms, so I'm not actually poisoned. Carry on then, false alarm." It moves the plot along because Harlan isn't willing to risk Marta getting in trouble for poisoning him and they have less than 10 minutes to act. This would count as a stupidity entry if Harlan didn't care about who took the blame for killing him, but obviously he does. Remember, stupidity entries are not for poor decisions by characters, they are for minor plot holes. This being "an act no-one would ever do in real life" is kind of the entire point of the movie. Nobody believes Harlan would do this because, well nobody cares about their nurse that much. But he does.
The part I was quoting is the description of the category in the metadata on google, or if you prefer the hover text description just above this very page go by "Something just plain stupid. Not as deal-breaking as a plot hole, but something daft, like running upstairs with a killer behind them, instead of out of the front door." I call "slitting your own throat feeling totally fine after you yourself have been calling the minutes with precision earlier", pretty silly, to say the least. Again, this is all stuff the script itself unnecessarily calls attention on. If he didn't mention twice the time before, if she hadn't said that the symptoms happen after 5 but just "your heart is gonna exploded at the 10 minute mark", then, maybe, I would have simply reported the factual error that this is not how it works. It's the script itself that points out (Harlan himself says it twice) the exact minutes, and the symptoms and how they are gradual.
This still ignores the fact that they don't have time to test the theory. They would have to notice the lack of symptoms, and assume somehow that the lack of symptoms after 5 minutes must mean that Harlan isn't actually poisoned, and stop their plan right then and there. The audience knows that Harlan isn't really poisoned, but we don't find that out until later. I doubt very seriously that anyone watching this film for the first time believed, as you suggest, that Harlan obviously wasn't poisoned because he didn't show any symptoms and it was therefore stupid for him to kill himself. It seems to you to be stupid in hindsight, but I honestly don't believe, based on what the characters knew, that Harlan's action was so egregious that it constitutes a mistake in the script.
We definitely had a very different impression watching it the first time. The thought that this old man could be shot a big dose of morphine in vein and calmly think of perfect murder plans for the next minutes was 200% absurd on first view here. I could say that others thought the same but it's just anecdotical and I respect you having a different take. For the rest, it's again just the script itself drawing attention to it. From the mouth of the same character who nonchalantly slits his own throat feeling still fine. It seems egregiously stupid and contradictory.
But he wasn't shot a big dose of morphine. He got his normal meds, they only think he overdosed.
We don't know that yet. We know that, in their words, he was shot 100 mg instead of 3 (does not matter if true or not, we are fed this information and the characters believe it). Again, the whole scene would have worked if they didn't, themselves, add details. Makes the overdose sound huge, and inserting the 6 minutes mark (which means, barely 1 min till the symptoms show up) before the daughter arrives when more than half of the scene has still to be played, weakens it terribly. Some things are maybe just stupid in hindsight, like the fact that all he needed to do was to write in his own penmanship a suicide note saying he killed himself with an injection once Marta left, but the overdose bit felt absurd on first viewing.
Stupidity: The lack of security at the château is not plausible. The Germans typically would have layers of protection around headquarters or other sensitive areas. In the movie, there are two middle aged guys guarding the road into the Château. After that there are no checkpoints, no patrols, and no controlled access points into the castle. It makes no sense that dozens of officers would be left vulnerable to an attack by French resistance fighters, let alone an Allied airborne assault.
Stupidity: The 1st time Foley enters the warehouse with the woman, 2 guys enter with the wooden box and black bags on top to transfer the bonds, then take it back to the truck. Why enter the warehouse at all when they could've put the bonds in the bag anyway, inside the van? They had no reason to go to the warehouse at all. (00:42:20 - 00:43:25)
Stupidity: Al is supposed to be a super serious toy collector and seller, but he handles valuable toys without cleaning the cheese puff dust off his hands.
Suggested correction: It's also established someone is coming over to clean said toys, dust included, and when he does the handling, he's just been sharply awakened by the TV therefore is off-kilter.
Suggested correction: It wasn't so much as them believing they could beat him. But several factors here. The invincible superhero is suddenly in prison and not breaking out. It is reasonable to believe that a lot of inmates would think that perhaps he has been weakened and thus vulnerable and see this as opportunity for revenge. Even if that's not the case, basic prison mentality is to prove dominance and show no weakness. Attacking Hancock would demonstrate to the other prisoners that they did not have fear and were tough, even if they couldn't win as a way of proving themselves. Not only this, but the type of people in a prison tend to not be the most forward thinking type.
Quantom X ★
This correction is just plain wrong. Do you think Mike Tyson was ever attacked during his incarceration? Not a chance. I was in the Melbourne Remand Centre when a karate expert - he came third in the world championships - joined us after being banged up on his sixth dui charge. He was "ghosted" - that's an actual thing in prison - treated as if he wasn't even there. Not even the toughest of the tough would even acknowledge his presence.