Stupidity: When they first arrive on Planet Zero, Victor runs his hand through the mysterious green liquid on the planet surface. No scientist in their right mind would ever willingly attempt to touch a body part to an unknown substance. He had no way of knowing if the substance was toxic, corrosive, incendiary, hypothermic, etc. Moreover, none of his companions try to warn him against doing so.
Stupidity: The bad guys should have just shot Paul and his backup during the standoff rather than risking another impediment.
Stupidity: When Susan is on the balcony with the man trying to kill her, she pulls out her gun with one hand (she's leaning on the other hand). He says she won't shoot because the gun's magazine has fallen out and Susan gives up and drops the gun. However, if there is a round in the chamber, the gun can still fire without a magazine in it. As trained as Susan is suppose to be, she should know this. But, if there's not a round in the chamber, then, as a trained agent, Susan is ineptly prepared to use her gun. If there's not a round in the chamber, pulling the trigger will not fire the gun nor will pulling the trigger chamber a round. But she would need both hands to chamber a round and she only has one hand free. There is the occasional gun that has a magazine disconnect safety, but it would be stupid for field agents to have one since they may be in a situation where they need to fire without a magazine in (such as this situation).
Stupidity: When the Pteradons are loose and flying over the crowds, people run from inside buildings out into the open where the birds are attacking people. (01:22:00)
Suggested correction: A person is smart, people are stupid. A crowd in a panic would do exactly that sort of thing. Like trampling over each other running in panic from a shooting or a fire when not needed. It's the nature of panic in humans as a group to act stupid. It's not a movie mistake. It's actually one of the more realistic parts of the film.
Suggested correction: The dinosaurs were also breaking into/attacking people inside, so they weren't safe no matter what.
True, but one option is certainly safer than the other.
Stupidity: The idea that to stop someone from reading an e-mail if you can't sneakily delete the mail at least you can steal their computer altogether is flawed (for one, they can access their account from a different machine - and turns out Jules' mom has two laptops at home), but despite that, and the fact that everyone in Ben's team is supposedly tech-savvy, nobody takes exception to that. (01:10:20)
Stupidity: In an empty sewage tunnel, after Elsa saves Ethan, there just happens to be a defibrillator.
Stupidity: Immediately after Unkar Plutt makes Rey a generous offer for BB-8 and she refuses, he tells someone over his communicator to follow her and bring back the droid. He should have at least waited until she was out of earshot before he said that, especially if he was trying to be covert about it.
Suggested correction: But he was out of earshot of her.
I posted this immediately after watching the scene in question, and it looked as though Plutt spoke into his communicator right after Rey turned around and went on her way; certainly too soon for her to have gotten more than a few steps away. Also, he spoke at a normal, conversational volume rather than anything that sounded like a whisper or "sotto voce", so unless he was relying on the ambient noise of other nearby activity, I still believe this "stupidity" is valid.
That depends on how sneaky you think Plutt is. Rey walks away in quick paces, so she is out of earshot. Also I don't think it bothers him that much if she heard, she is just a scavenger, what can she do about it?
Rey was definitely out of earshot. Rey walks completely out of the shot, which appears to be about 10 feet away. Unkar Plutt then angrily swipes the portions off the counter and picks up his communicator. At the pace Rey was walking she would have been a considerable distance away from him when he spoke. In addition, Unkar Plutt lowered his voice when he spoke because he was being sneaky. She might have been able to hear him speak, but it is totally reasonable that she wouldn't be close enough to make out exactly what he was saying.
Stupidity: With the threat of strangulating Jess, Garriga coerces a false confession from Nicky about the complicity of Jess. Garriga then laughs, calls Nicky out on it, and points out the confession's deficiencies. The film treats the whole scene as an astute reveal à la Sherlock Holmes! Nobody notices, let alone points out, that a coerced confession is worthless. In reality, Garriga would feel very stupid because he almost murdered someone. For the same reason, Jess must feel very angry.
Stupidity: Noah loves the classics, he shows passion and interest in them, it's part of what wins over professor Jennifer Lopez. Witness this risible exchange, about Achilles; "He killed this guy, Hector. But instead of hiding out like a pussy, he..." "Dragged his dead body around for everybody to see." "Yes." The sheer dumbness of this exchange, especially the first statement, hurts the brain; why would a warrior 'hide out like a pussy' for killing an enemy during war?
Suggested correction: Achilles killed Hector in an act of revenge, not an act of war. Hector was a beloved warrior and treating his corpse with disrespect could have insulted the Trojans. Knowing this, Achilles dragged Hector's body around the city in an act of boldness. So yes, instead of "hiding out" after killing his enemy, Achilles acted like a "badass", taunting the Trojans with his victory over their champion, disregarding any threat of reprisal. There's nothing stupid about this exchange.
"Dude, there's this book about a Greek war with gods and heroes and sh*t: you know what, the main character kills his enemy in battle and doesn't hide out after! Like it's a war or something." What a stellar and perfectly not stupid pitch about the book! Makes totally sense and it obviously woos the college professor too! Mind you, I don't want to come across as sarcastic and I enjoy reading your comment, but the "not an act of war" objection is irrelevant when all the action happens in the battlefield, regardless of character motivations. Point is, the statement does not follow logic when it comes to pitching an epic fantasy book to a young adult, and on top of that, this fundamentally flawed series of statements is even painted as something totally impressing a college professor.Surely my flawed perspective of a snob living amongst snobs in a country where the study of classics is more widespread than the US, but blurting out something like that would get you a giggle at best.
I think you're putting too much weight on the "not hiding out" part of Noah's statement and not enough weight on the defiance of Achilles, which is what Noah was saying he was impressed with. For this to be a stupid statement, it would have to be incorrect. It isn't incorrect. Noah describes exactly what happened. Sure, he uses a colloquial tone but all he's really saying is "Achilles kills Hector in a duel and rather than flee the battlefield afterwards, he parades Hector's corpse around the city to intimidate his enemies." You seem to be hung up on the "fleeing the battlefield" part, as if that is a reading of Achilles actions that is so off base it rises to the level of a mistake in the movie. I don't believe that to be the case. Also, this college professor is impressed by the fact a youth would read Homer on his own at all, and the fact that he's incredibly charming and handsome certainly doesn't hurt.
I put weight on it because it sticks out: the line itself is designed to get attention using that colorful expression. Even as you paraphrased it with "Achilles kills Hector in a duel and rather than flee the battlefield afterwards" etc, the problem is not the tone: since when it's the go-to move in the genre, killing someone in a duel and then fleeing? I can't see why this would be a logical thing to say, so strongly even, to pitch the book to his friend! Like pitching a restaurant prefacing unironically that they do not spit in your food. His reading is not technically incorrect, or I would have put it in the 'character mistake' category, but mentioning what did (not) happen is daft and contrived. And yes, it is a dialogue that is supposed to reinforce that 'incredibly charming' quality you mention but it is written in such a childish way that undermines it, also considering that he told her he already studied Homer in his previous school and he is not exactly a kid.
Stupidity: Very soon after Damon is stranded, one of the many satellites around Mars inevitably picks up the fact that he has moved various objects around his site, indicating that he's still alive. Yet it never occurs to him that this would obviously, eventually happen. In which case, his best option would be to simply spell out a message with debris and stay put instead of planning some 50-day journey.
Stupidity: At the end of the plane chase Bond fails to finish off Hinx. Regardless whether he thinks he's dead or not, with a licence to kill he should have made sure.
Stupidity: Unless Snow has solid proof like pictures or video why should Katniss believe her main enemy's word that it was Alma Coin, not him, who killed those kids?
Suggested correction: This is a question and not a stupidity. Katniss didn't just accept Snow at his word. Earlier Gale had mentioned an attack strategy to inflict maximum casualties on medics that matched the attack on the Capitol. Then Gale could not deny his part in Prim's death. All the evidence pointed to Coin being responsible as Snow suggested.
I appreciate responses here because it means you're reading stuff and that makes my day.
Stupidity: Nicholas Cage saves the kids coming out of the dark dimension exactly at midnight but gets back home at dawn. It should be noted that he has two other kids to bring back home and if we assume he did that already, it would explain part of the time discrepancy. In that case he kept his wife up all night when she was fearing for the safety of both without a word, but she's not upset or anything.
Stupidity: In the flashback about the way the victim was poisoned, it would seem that the murderer straight out went to a waitress and handed them a single chalice of poisoned champagne, ordering the waitress to give that exact glass to the victim. That's just a little bit absurd; if it's a flashback based on a testimony, the case should have been solved in 0.1 minutes once the waitress says that that very well known person asked them to bring a glass to the victim - it's a request highly unusual and that would be easily remembered. If it's just some wild guess of the detective, that's a mighty strange way to imagine how things went, rather than just the killer slipping venom in the victim's glass when they were not looking. (01:04:00)