Plot hole: Every single one of the ronin are portrayed as being extremely lax with their most prized possession, their swords. When they first gather, one of the ronin tells Oishi "We do not have any swords", whereupon Oishi casually hand over his own. First of all, only the most poverty-stricken and desperate ronin sold their swords, as giving up one's sword was the ultimate humiliation for a samurai, it was a denial of both one's status and legacy. Secondly, selling your sword would mean never being able to be employed as samurai again, or even to be hired as a temporary bodyguard. Thirdly, swords were often inherited from one's father, or given as personal gifts by parents or lords, not something one would willingly give up. It is possible a few of the ronin would have been driven to selling or otherwise losing their swords, but not every single one of the 50+ ronin who gather. And those who still had them would be extremely loathe to even lend them to others.
Plot hole: The whole premise of the movie is that history would write off the existence of the Ghostbusters after the events of the first movie. In that movie there was prolonged large scale destruction in the heart of a city with millions of inhabitants. It's simply impossible that people would forget or dismiss it. And that's if we do not even begin to assume that the second one happened, even if the director said it did; nothing in his movie shows that, and for a good reason (Statue of Liberty, anyone?).
Suggested correction: There's nothing in the movie to indicate that people in general have "forgotten" or "dismissed" the existence of the Ghostbusters, nor is that the "whole premise" of the movie. The fact the teacher is a fanboy and that the characters literally watch old news-clips and commercials for the Ghostbusters kind of goes against this. People simply just stopped talking about them because they did their jobs too well and went out of business 30 years prior... they were no longer relevant. I mean, if you want a real-world-analogue, just look at 9/11. It was a massive, generation-defining event, and yet outside of brief memorials once a year (which honestly, fewer and fewer people seem to pay attention to every year), people basically don't talk about it at all anymore. The only characters in the movie that don't believe in ghosts/the Ghostbusters at first are the kids. And their mother has been purposely sheltering them because she hates their grandfather-a Ghostbuster. So it makes sense they wouldn't necessarily know about them.
9/11 was a different kind of event; it didn't have 4 easy to remember heroes who already were on magazines covers all over the world and while it certainly dropped off the radar in many ways, some consequences in the long term have been permanent and it is in the history books. Here the world had proof that there are other dimensions, the dead, etc, and years later the Ghostbusters are relegated to a few youtube videos with a few thousand views (that with Peter supposedly teaching advertising and promotion, even). I didn't mention the kids, although the movie itself knows it's absurd that Podcast does not know anything about it and there's a joke about it. I understand if someone makes a point about the movie taking an ample creative license for the sake of not having to deal with 'realistic' implications of its comedic prequels since it wouldn't service the kind of story it wants to tell here, but I am surprised you say that the Ghostbusters here are not forgotten or dismissed. Somehow they are so fringe that not even the conspiracy theory guy knows about them, and the teacher knows because they are a childhood memory.
Like Ray tells a young Jason Reitman in Ghostbusters II, "Well some people have trouble believing in the paranormal." The public would have even less of a reason to believe in or think about the Ghostbusters since there were no Ghost sightings in thirty years. Not to mention the fact that men walked on the moon six times between 1969 and 1972 and astronauts were viewed as heroes, but we haven't visited the moon in fifty years, and astronauts are no longer regarded as heroes.
We keep conducting research in the field sending people in space when and where necessary and people are well aware that astronauts exist, even if they declined in popularity. It's not random obscure knowledge you can get only if you are looking specifically for it on some Youtube channel that a science nut and a conspiration theorist never heard of before. And we are again comparing something that does not have the same impact it would have to learn that dead people still walk (so to speak) the Earth. BTW, I am not sure (but I could be wrong here and please correct me) that the movie says that there have been 'no' ghost sightings at all; Ray said that they received less calls, not enough to pay their bills, not that ghosts disappeared entirely. It's just that in the Ghostbusters universe, people are kinda jaded about everything, which worked when the movies were comedies and you could say it was obvious paradox and satire that they would save the planet and still get sued once they weren't relevant anymore.
Plot hole: When Jessica Tandy walks into Mr. Faucet's house everything is in perfect shape except a couple of broken cups, and there's not a dead bird in sight. (00:59:40)
Plot hole: After being denied permission to contact the aliens by himself, Dr. Marvin returns to his hotel and calls them up on the radio anyway and arranges to meet, despite not being allowed to leave the hotel. His wife says she overheard him say he's under orders not to leave and begs him to call someone instead: "Call Huglin". She shouldn't know who Huglin is because Huglin was only assigned to guard them as Marvin was being denied permission to contact the aliens.
Plot hole: In the scene with the brothers group, the guys don't believe that Fred is Santa Claus's brother (because they don't believe in Santa). But why don't they believe in Santa? Santa leaves gifts for kids on Christmas. If they don't believe in Santa then where do they think the presents came from?
Plot hole: WW mentions that "As Darkseid waged war on Earth, he found a secret there", that being the Anti-life equation. But later on it turns out that after being defeated, planet Earth is so "anonymous among a trillion worlds" that he never manages to find it again and destroys another 100,000 worlds (his words!) to look for it again. That would mean that they lack any sort of navigation, and it's hardly possible anyway that the planet would be "anonymous" when it contains what Darkseid wants the most.
Suggested correction: This is in the form of a question and should be uploaded as such. There are several reasons to think why Darkseid couldn't find Earth.
The questions were rhetorical, but thanks to your comment I edited rephrasing it without any questioning ambiguity, since my interest is not much in hearing fan theories filling the gaps in the narration, but rather in pointing out the obvious contradiction where Darkseid is fully aware right from the start that the most important thing in the universe is on Earth, but can't find it again and conquers another thousands of worlds instead "still looking" for it.
Earth was a random planet they attacked and on that random planet Darkseid found a secret, he didn't go there for the secret, he found it whilst there. I don't expect him to go into his ship and put a pin on a map to remember where the planet was in case they were defeated. They expected to win. In their retreat, their way to navigate back to Earth got lost. Perfectly reasonable. You don't know anything about Darkseid's way of conquering and also no idea on how they navigate from world to world.
You know he was not alone, he had an army with a whole slew of ships and subordinates, it takes a lot of suspension of disbelief to swallow the idea that they are conquering worlds going in totally blind and "conquer" worlds they can't ever visit again lacking any charting.They refer the Earth by name and know who their opponents are. An explanation would be also less stringent if Darkseid didn't learn about Anti-life at all and simply "moved on", but it's not the case.
Plot hole: Throughout the film we see several characters talk about how there's no Christmas spirit and how nobody believes in Santa anymore. If, in this universe at least, Santa does exist, it's almost impossible for people to think this. If the parents deliver the presents then how do they explain the excess gifts that Santa brings? We know that Michael is on the nice list because Santa shows him towards the end, so Michael must get presents from Santa. There is no way that Walter can't believe in Santa then because Michael gets gifts from him every year.
Suggested correction: Emily and Walter probably just thought each present Michael got from Santa was from the other parent. I'm not sure if Walter got him presents or not but you can see that Emily did as she's seen walking home with presents when she's on the phone with Walter.
That is highly unlikely. When my daughter was "believing in Santa" age, my wife and I always talked about what we were getting her, so we didn't duplicate. Plus that theory wouldn't work for single parents.
It is very likely because it's obvious Walter is not in the Christmas spirit like his wife and Michael are. Plus it's obvious Walter is not focused on his family at the beginning of the movie so it's safe to assume the original submission is correct.
Plot hole: When we first see Lara in her wetsuit, she has a back pack attached to her harness, a torch on her left shoulder, some sort of pistol-thing on her thigh, her 5-barrel dart gun by her left buttock and a little pouch in the small of her back. In the temple she takes off the pistol-thing, dart gun and backpack, yet after climbing the statue manages to produce a video camera, safety spectacles and a cutting/welding device from somewhere.
Plot hole: The whole film is basically told as a flashback from Rand Peltzer's point of view. Now he might be able to talk about things that Billy, his mom, or Kate might have told him, but he wouldn't have known about all the other the gremlins did to the rest of the town like killing Mrs. Deagle, the cops, or the gremlin in the mailbox.
Plot hole: During the play Klaus climbs up the side of the building to save the baby. He gets up and finds out Olaf burned their home with a giant magnifying glass. Later, Klaus uses the magnifying glass to burn the marriage certificate. This is impossible because the device couldn't have possibly been facing or forced to face the stage. The magnifying glass was on the other side of where Klaus climbed up and when he was climbing up he was facing the stage.
Plot hole: When everyone is passing the bill and Evan's suit changes to the robe, how is it that no one noticed that he came in wearing normal clothing and then his clothes changed into the robe in less than a second. Heck it showed his family watching him walk right into the room wearing normal clothing, and then watched him the entire time. How did they not notice that he never once changed his clothes?
Plot hole: When the "Blue Bird" patient finally sees the Blue Jay, he starts excitedly shouting "Blue Bird! Blue Bird!" This uprising causes a riot in the institution, and in the immediate exterior shot of the building, everyone from all four floors already know and are staring out the window at the bird. Within the time-frame of the scene only the people on the floor which saw the bird would actually know about this. Psych ward floors are kept separated as it is even noted by an attendant when he said, "Do you want to go to the fourth floor?" which indicates that the floors are kept separate. This was deliberately done for dramatic purposes. (00:44:00 - 00:45:00)
Plot hole: Throughout the movie, Bladebeak works for the villains. But, during the climax, he becomes a good guy without any explanation.
Plot hole: When Bella drops off Jacob and Renesmee at Charlie's house, she says she has to do an errand and will be back soon. She then proceeds to drive to Seattle, which is about 130 miles east and separated by a large body of water called Puget Sound. Being that I live in Seattle, I know that the most direct route from Forks to Seattle involves driving from the outer Washington coast through Port Angeles, then Sequim, going over the Hood Canal (toll) Bridge, before going to plus waiting for and riding a ferry across Puget Sound from Kingtston to Edmonds, and then at least another 25 minutes driving south on I-5 to Seattle. Even if Bella drove very fast (which she could not possibly do the entire way), it would take close to four hours one way, depending on traffic, wait and ride time for the ferry, stopping to pay at the toll bridge, and general driving conditions. Bella would also spend almost two hours in Seattle conducting her business with Mr. Jenks (which include driving through the busy downtown traffic, parking, going through the mall to the restaurant, and driving through the city again back to the ferry terminal) before returning to Forks. Depending on what time she originally left to when she got back home, it would be late in the evening. There are several other ways to get to Seattle from Forks, but they would take just as long or much longer.
Plot hole: If the ancient civilization wanted to stop people from ever using the power of the triangle again, why didn't they just destroy the triangle right then and there instead of splitting it in two and hiding the pieces? It would make sure that no one would ever get the power of the triangle and is easier than going to ends of the earth and creating all sorts of traps and challenges.
Plot hole: Obviously, tooth fairies are real, in this movie at least. During the movie, Derek has to retrieve each child's tooth and put money under the pillow. He's paged as soon as the kid loses the tooth, since he often has to wait till the kid goes to bed before intervening, and he is required to do it as soon as possible. But parents are doing the same, and at one point in the movie Derek actually stops a dad that just did the swap and extorts the tooth from him. That of course creates a parodox: the majority of parents in the world apparently have been subjected for centuries to the freak occurrence of finding already under their pillows mysterious money and their children's baby teeth missing as they go do the deed themselves. You can't have both the fairy and the parent do the same task.
Suggested correction: This is part of the suspension of disbelief for holiday movies like this. Doing this means you would have to apply the exact same logic to every Christmas movie depicting Santa as real leaving presents for children when the parents would just see gifts appear they didn't leave behind.
I thought the same, but the thing is, it's all left to the imagination, for instance you can assume there's some "magic" that makes the parents forget everything and just assume they bought the gifts themselves even if they did not. If they meet Santa, it's considered a special deal, and its consequences are not shown, so it all stops here. Not here, here there are specific magic devices (a magic dust of forgetfulness exactly to erase memory of what happened, for instance) that in this encounter is not used by The Rock. So this movie is awfully specific about the interaction between the magical agents and whatnot, to the point that they need to erase their traces and not be spotted, but those rules don't make internal sense. Had they said nothing about it, I would have just assumed it was like every Santa movie as you mentioned, where it is not presented by the movie itself as an issue with contradictory solutions.
Plot hole: Al Simmons' reasoning for wanting to quit A-6 is because he learns his rocket attack in his assassination mission in the beginning of the film yielded civilian casualties. This makes no sense, as he blatantly gunned down several innocent men in the air control tower just moments before.
Plot hole: When Jim is shown what he has to pay for the damages Herbie did to Mr. Wu's shop he says he has no money. First off if he had no money how in the world was he able to put down any money on the red sports car he had just purchased that night? Secondly, what happened to the prize money from all the races he was winning from the previous few months?