Corrected entry: In every battle that results in major ship damage getting warp drive back on-line is always a priority. If it was so easy for Spock (in the sense that he did not need any tools and not easy in the sense that he died) to get warp drive back on-line why didn't somebody else (with full protective gear) do exactly what he did a lot earlier? Also, what did he do?
BaconIsMyBFF
19th Apr 2004
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Correction: Sorry, I kinda disagree with this as Spock's solution/fix is just to open the top of the warp drive, swirl out a load of sparkly, floury gunk, and replace the lid on. How hard would that have been for ANYONE to have done?
Warp drive isn't real. We don't see exactly what Spock does, but we must assume it was a complex repair. The fact that Leonard Nimoy just appears to take the lid off and swish his hands around is due to the fact that the prop is just a plastic bowl with a light bulb and a fog machine inside. Suspension of disbelief. Also, the issue was the entire compartment was flooding with radiation, and there wasn't time to put on a full safety suit AND make the repair.
26th Sep 2023
Rocky (1976)
Stupidity: There is no way a fighter with a brain would risk serious injury to themselves before a fight by continually punching a frozen rack of meat in a freezer slaughterhouse. There is nothing to gain by doing this, and it would only result in both fists being broken.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: In fact, Sylvester Stallone permanently damaged his knuckles filming the two scenes. He obviously did not realise how dangerous punching a side of beef would be, and it isn't out of the question that the character Rocky Balboa wouldn't realise this either.
It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that if you punch or hit anything with a bare fist against anything solid, rock hard, you will damage yourself badly.
Absolutely, it shouldn't, but that is not what the "Stupidity" category is for. It is unintelligent for someone to do this, but that is not a movie mistake. Sylvester Stallone really did punch that beef and really did injure himself, so it is not something that is out of the question for a character in a movie to do.
No, but it is out of the question for a man with painfully damaged knuckles to go fifteen rounds with a world heavyweight champion boxer. In fact, Rocky would probably have failed the compulsory pre-fight physical and would have been ruled unfit to fight.
Where in the movie is Rocky experiencing "painfully damaged knuckles"? With your logic, the fight would have most likely been called long before the 15th round, due to the very unrealistic and improbable punishment the 2 boxers were inflicting on each other.
14th Jul 2023
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Question: At the start, she was to drive the truck to get gas. She never got there, and yet was able to drive all over. How?
Answer: Furiosa was not getting gas for the war rig; it is presumably fully fuelled. Furiosa was to fill the tank with gas to bring it back to be used for other vehicles.
If you're going to get gas, why have a full tank in the war rig? Put enough in it to be able to get to Gas town, pulling the attached round tank. Fill the round tank and fill up the war rig. Return with lots of gas in a full round tank and a full war rig.
I believe there is some confusion here with how the gas tank system works on the war rig. The truck itself has its own gas tank; the tank that is being towed is completely separate. It's exactly the same as real-life gas trucks.
Why does that question even need to be answered? You're going to use gas going there and coming back. It doesn't matter if the war rig was full or not when it left. Assuming they're going to be gassing the war rig up once they get there to collect the gas, it's going to come back with the exact same amount of gas no matter what. So it really makes no difference whatsoever. Also, what happens if they get delayed along the way? If they only have enough gas to get to Gas Town, but something happens, they'll just get stuck.
I agree, it's not very smart to fill the war rig with just enough gas to get to town. But it sounds like they're saying take whatever you can out of the war rig, and you'd have that much extra gas when they get back. For example, if the rig held 25 gallons and only needed 5 gallons to get to town, you can take out 20 gallons. The rig then arrives in town empty, fills up, and comes back with 20 gallons in the tank. So now you have 40 gallons instead of just 20 (plus whatever the tank holds).
I think the big point is what Furiosa was planning. She filled the gas tank of the truck up to be able to go further with it; she wasn't planning on getting the gas anyway.
Ok, I can understand that... but I still don't see why it's a question that needs to be answered, hahaha. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why every tiny detail needs an explanation or answer, especially when it doesn't really matter for the story.
Answer: What she did most likely took months of planning. Who she could trust to help her. How exactly she could smuggle the girls out, and most importantly, gaining the trust of the boss to the point where he believed she was his obedient slave who could never betray him.
Answer: Nobody knew the war rig was full of gas. They thought she was going to fill the tanker and come back, not smuggle out the girls.
Sorry, can't believe that. The boss guy controlled everything. He would know where and how much gas there was. Also, lowering the truck empty would be a lot different than lowering it fully loaded.
The truck was supposed to be empty when it left. She was taking an empty tank to be filled, but smuggled the wives inside. It weighed probably 300 pounds more than it was supposed to, but that would be imperceptible to the people operating the elevator. The war rig likely weighs several tons.
It's not empty, it is filled with water. The wives were hiding in the tractor.
30th May 2023
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023)
Stupidity: There is no reason why any person as intelligent as Janet would keep the knowledge of Kang secret from her family. The extended Pym family are the only people in possession of the one thing Kang needs to escape. The brief explanation she gives is that she wanted to protect her family, but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and she makes no attempt to explain how this secret keeps anyone safe.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is obviously scared out of her mind concerning Kang. She, through her fear, had hoped that him being trapped in the Quantum Realm would stay permanent as long as nobody knew about it in the normal universe. In that way, she tried to protect not only her family but the entire universe.
Not only does she not say that she is "scared out of her mind", she also doesn't act like it either. There is no indication that she is so frightened by Kang that she has lost her senses - quite the opposite, actually. She appears to function rationally and intelligently in every other area concerning Kang, except of course for simply telling anyone how dangerous the Quantum Realm is because the movie wouldn't have a plot otherwise. It's pretty egregious and wildly ridiculous.
Of course, she doesn't say that or act like that. But what she saw of him, when she touched his ship, scared her enough to go to all that trouble to keep him in the quantum realm at all costs. She thought it would be safe to leave, that he was trapped forever. Her judgment was wrong, probably caused by her fear. She is only human.
"Fear" is not enough to get past this level of stupidity. My point is that she doesn't act so frightened; she isn't irrational in any other way. It's just a flat-out, stupidly written element of the film that is impossible to believe. There is no way on God's green earth she should keep this secret, even after her family has made it to the quantum realm. I get that the movie is trying to say she is frightened, but this goes well beyond making any kind of sense at all; it's ridiculous.
Part of the stupidity also involves Janet's action in the mid-credit scenes of "Ant-Man and the Wasp," where she actively helped send Scott into the Quantum Realm to get quantum energy. If she was so afraid of a signal being sent to the QR, she wouldn't have let Scott go without explaining the dangers of going. This film seems to ignore that and instead seems to focus on Janet simply not wanting to discuss her involvement with Kang and her guilt, thinking no one would go back to the QR.
19th May 2023
Bloodsport (1988)
Stupidity: Amongst the dubious statistics attributed to the real Frank Dux at the end of the film is the claim that he holds the record for "Most Consecutive Knockouts in a Single Tournament - 56." A single tournament with at least 56 rounds would include over 72,000,000,000,000,000 entrants.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While the entire film could be considered fiction based on Dux's dubious claims, your statement is only valid for a single-elimination style tournament. There are other types of tournaments, such as a round robin which would only require 57 contestant (Dux plus at least 56 guys to knock out).
The kumite is a single elimination tournament. It wouldn't make any sense to have a full-contact tournament, where the action is so (legally) violent that fights routinely end in severe injury or even death, use any other form of bracket.
Nothing is stated that every tournament Dux was in was the Kumite as depicted in the film. Just that he retired undefeated in the Kumite.
The records listed at the end of the film are kumite records. The information comes from Frank Dux himself who made the claims on more than one occasion. When it says 56 consecutive knockouts, it is referring to the kumite and not some other, possibly round robin (which honestly would still be a ridiculous claim) tournament. It is likely the makers of the film believed "consecutive knockouts" meant "single tournament."
I guess everything I've read on him over the decades never made it clear it was talking about one type of tournament with all the accomplishments he's claimed to have. And I've read the same repeated factoid about how many contestants 56 rounds would have that you read.
2nd Jan 2023
Sudden Death (1995)
Stupidity: The secret service officer near the elevator gets shot right in the middle of his head by the Penguin mascot, and she drags his dead body into the elevator. Suddenly he's able to moan and groan and she shoots him again. The guy was very shot in the head, as in graphically. How is he suddenly alive enough to moan?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A bullet to the head is not guaranteed to kill someone. Movies and video games have taught us that being shot in the head is instant death, but that just isn't the case.
Pretty sure you wouldn't wake up in seconds after a bullet to the head.
Correct. You probably would just lay there stunned while moaning and groaning... exactly like the scene depicts.
He didn't "wake up", he moaned. Which is 100% possible and actually happens quite frequently.
25th Sep 2022
Shane (1953)
Question: Am I the only one that has seen an alternate ending to Shane? I saw it once where he comes riding back from over the hill.
Answer: During the 1960's, there was a TV Series, "Shane," which ran for one season on ABC. The premise was Shane returned to the ranch to help the now widowed Starrett and her son.
Thanks for the reply, but my daughter already suggested that one. That definitely wasn't it though. I've never even seen that TV show. The one I saw first was Allan Ladd and no other. All the other actors the same as well. There is no other movie that I have ever thought this about.
Answer: As far as I know there is no alternate ending. I've watched it for over forty years.
Yeah, that's what everyone says. So far no-one has seen what I saw. My best guess is that I saw an alternate version of the movie that they accidentally released briefly to my local Dayton Ohio TV station in 1970. Then again maybe I was briefly transported to an alternate universe where that is their version? Just kidding... I think?
Mandela effect.
I saw Shane for the first time in 1970. I do remember it well. It was a slightly different version. I've seen it several times since and it is a different version. The first one I saw was like this... The father was not as good of a husband and father. Shane and the woman had a bit more than just an attraction. The farmer knocked Shane out and the farmer went to town and got himself killed. After leaving, Shane came back over the hill. The boy, with tears in his eyes, yelled "Shane you came back".
This is a perfect example of the Mandela Effect. No alternate version of the film exists where Shane comes back over the hill. There would be no reason for the studio to spend the money to script, shoot, edit, and distribute two versions of a film that vary so wildly. That there is no evidence of this alternate version other than "memories" should indicate that it doesn't actually exist. It is possible you are conflating elements of the film and the 1966 television series.
25th Aug 2021
Arachnophobia (1990)
Revealing mistake: At the end when the dock 'kicks' the king spider off him into the fire, we hear it scream like a stuck pig. Then additional screams from the 'burning' spiders inside the pulsating nest, and when the doc torches both the king spider afterwards.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not sure how this is a mistake. Sure real world spiders don't making squealing noises but real world spiders also don't jump 30 feet or have venom potent enough to kill a human within seconds of being bitten.
It's a mistake because spiders cannot vocalize at all. The film creates a new spider species with exaggerated aspects of real life spiders: extremely potent venom, highly aggressive behavior, jumping ability, etc. What the film can't do is give the spiders traits they couldn't possibly have in real life.
8th Oct 2019
Mortal Engines (2018)
Plot hole: There is no way Anna could know that Hester was going to be at the auction. The circumstances that led to Hester and Tom being captured can't possibly have spread to the Anti-Traction League, they were immediately taken to the slave auction after being captured. Anna also instantly recognizes Hester when she sees her despite the fact that Hester was 8 years old the last time she would have seen her.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Anna might have very well just been there to do anti-tractionist things, it was an auction made of towns after all a prime target to hit many options at once or hide bombs on for a bigger city to gobble up and go off later. Once she saw Hester her plans simply changed. As for how she recognized her, it is possible Anna had been tracking / keeping an eye on her. It wouldn't be impossible to ask around for a scar faced girl moving from town to town and might have gotten a pic somewhere.
These are all wild guesses that aren't confirmed by the film itself. They do not qualify as corrections.
18th Feb 2022
Aliens (1986)
Question: 1) If a commanding officer orders you to do something but what they ask you makes no logical sense should you still do it? I'm of course referring to Apone ordering his people to get rid of their ammo. And what are the repercussions for NOT obeying the order? 2) Why wouldn't they check for aliens coming on the ceiling? Wouldn't the ceiling ducts show up on the blueprints they looked over earlier?
Answer: 1) Of course they are supposed to obey orders. Superiors don't usually completely explain the full reason why they give a specific order, it takes too long. That's why soldiers are trained to obey orders, no questions asked. You can see what happens when soldiers don't obey orders, because they had a good reason to tell them not to fire their guns, and they got lucky they didn't hit anything that could compromise the reactor. Insubordination is a serious offense. But since these are fictional space marines we can't really know what the repercussions would be. 2) The aliens didn't come through any ducts. They were hiding in the walls, which had a similar structure and colour as their bodies (logical since they made it). The marines didn't know the aliens would be so stealthy and smart to hide in the walls. They were there for search and rescue and weren't ready to face the aliens, since they hardly knew anything about them.
I think the second part of the question is referring to the scene where Hicks checks in the drop ceiling and finds aliens there. The poster is asking how come the drop ceiling doesn't show up on the blueprints.
22nd Feb 2007
The Monster Squad (1987)
Plot hole: In order to get rid of the monsters, Phoebe needs to read a text from Van Helsing's diary in order to summon the vortex. As Dracula approaches her, she becomes scared and misses on some words (the Scary German Guy is helping her read since she is 5 years old and she doesn't repeat some of the words he says). However the vortex still shows up to get rid of the monsters.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is never specified that the incantation must be read verbatim to work.
It also never states that reading only part of the incantation would work either. However, the mistake is still valid because the way to get rid of something evil by reading some "spell" you'd have to read the entire thing. Therefore the virgin shouldn't have been able to summon the vortex.
Since "spells" are entirely made up and magic isn't real, you can't say that in this film every word must be read for it to work when the film itself shows otherwise. Every film gets to make it's own rules with magic, this film establishes that the incantation can be read "in spirit" to work. Other films might have different rules.
It's always been implied in movies and books that incantations must be read word for word in order to work. Otherwise, what's the point of having all the words there if you only need to read a word or 2?
9th May 2018
We Are Marshall (2006)
Question: Did Jack Lengyel and Red Dawson really recruit athletes who have never played football before when rebuilding the team?
Answer: Yes they did. In addition to selecting football players from Marshall's Junior Varsity team, the coaches also recruited several players from other sports. Some of those athletes had never played on an organized football team previously.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't it have been awfully risky to recruit athletes who've never played football in their lives?
Not necessarily. Since they were already collegiate level athletes, it is likely they were quite physically fit. Those who had little football experience were likely used as bench players and saw little on field action.
I don't know that your statement that those who had little football were likely used, as bench players and saw little on field action is true. See, most of Marshall's experienced football players were killed in the plane crash which the movie is about.
There were about 20 freshmen players and several upperclassmen from the varsity team who weren't on the tragic flight that played the 1971 season. The majority of the team were at the very least, experienced high school players. The number of athletes on the team that had NEVER played on a football team before was low, but it was noteworthy.
12th Sep 2019
The Running Man (1987)
Plot hole: There is no reason for the prison guards to use portable computers in full view of the inmates to input the sonic deadline code. The guards can walk outside of the deadline whenever they need to input the code, or radio the guard on the outside to lower and raise the deadline like they do when bringing the workers out. In fact, this plot hole is compounded by the presence of the guards stationed outside of the deadline with their own computer, which makes the guard inside the deadline completely unnecessary. The interior guard is only there so Weiss has a way to get both the code and a computer, but this prison set-up makes absolutely no sense.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The point of having a portable on the outside and inside is in the case of an attempted prison break, if one of the computers is taken by the prisoners, the other can be used to prevent the deadline from shutting down. This was actually shown in the prison break scene where Weiss was unable to shut off the deadline with the inside computer was because the guards on the outside one were countering any attempts to close it.
That only explains why there is a guard outside with a computer. There is no reason to have a guard on the inside of the deadline with a computer. There can't be a prison break if there are no guards with a computer on the inside, the inmate's heads will explode if they cross the deadline.
6th Jan 2016
Man of Steel (2013)
Question: During the tornado scene, Jonathan Kent rescues the dog, Hank, and in the process injures his leg. With the tornado practically on top of him, Jonathan then waves off Clark, who is only about 50 yards away. The fact that Jonathan waves off Clark is proof that they BOTH knew Clark could rescue his dad, but Jonathan didn't want Clark to expose his super powers. Still, it was Clark's DAD in danger. Why didn't Clark simply go rescue his father at super speed? Certainly, the chaos of the tornado would easily cover Clark's actions, and there would be no reliable witnesses in the midst of such confusion.
Answer: That, AND the fact that his dad is able to stand firmly on the ground whilst the tornado engulfs him, and we still see him standing to the very end as the debris in the tornado starts to hit him. That didn't make sense to me...correct me if I'm wrong, but tornadoes can and do pick up large objects like vehicles etc. and then toss them away WITHOUT the physical funnel of the tornado actually having passed over said objects. I thought once you're in the debris field, which is a separate thing from the funnel, you're already liable to be tossed up into the air and then flung out, but here, Jonathan remains standing on the ground unaffected the whole time, while the vehicle, being heavier than a human, had begun to float up in the air earlier when he went to get the dog, and then he remains standing even while the physical funnel begins to consume him - he should've been tossed up in the air long ago when the funnel was already within hundreds of feet of proximity to Jonathan.
It's certainly unrealistic but it was obviously an artistic choice. The fact that he is peacefully consumed by the funnel rather that violently tossed through the air was meant to be a poignant moment.
Answer: While I could think of several different scenarios that Clark could have done to save his dad without his abilities/powers being seen (that don't involve him moving so fast no-one sees him), ultimately (as Clark said), he let his dad die because he trusted him. "My father believed that if the world found out who I really was, they'd reject me... out of fear. I let my father die because I trusted him. Because he was convinced that I had to wait. That the world was not ready."
Answer: At not point in either Man of Steel or Batman v Superman do we see Superman use speed of the type people have suggested while on the ground. The movie makes a point of outlining his abilities and some of their limits. For Clark to use that ability in that instance and nowhere else in the film would be inconsistent, so the conclusion must be that this version of the character does not have the ability to move in that manner. He might be fast-er than normal people, but not, "blink and you'll miss him fast" - otherwise it would always be an option for him throughout the film and it is not presented as such.
We know from Man of Steel that Clark is entirely capable of high-speed feats: He leaps from a crabbing boat at sea and swims to a burning oil rig easily 4 nautical miles away in a matter of not minutes but moments; and, in the logging-truck scene, Clark apparently wadded up a tractor-trailer so swiftly that nobody inside the bar, just a few yards away, heard a sound or felt an impact tremor. These were certainly acts of super speed; and Jonathan Kent certainly knew Clark could save him from the tornado, which is why he waved him off.
Next to that we see the same Superman in Justice League move at the same speed as Flash whilst on the ground.
Chosen answer: There were multiple witnesses under the bridge who may not have seen Clark, but would have seen Jonathan magically vanish and suddenly appear safe and sound a distance away.
16th Mar 2021
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Question: When McClane asks Barnes to 'break the code' on one of the baddies' Walkie Talkies, Barnes tells him it is impossible as it is a 10 button device with a 6 digit readout..."There could be a million combinations!" How can there be a million combinations? Surely the largest number on a 6 digit readout is 999,999.
Answer: You forgot 000000.
Answer: Totally agree with the other answer, but also, someone saying, "There could be a million combinations!" can also just be a deliberate hyperbole, and never meant to be taken literally. It's like saying, "I told you that a thousand times already."
Except that a 6-digit code literally has a million combinations. It's not hyperbole at all.
Oh really? No kidding? Never disputed that there was one million combinations. The character, however, could have intended his comment as a hyperbolized, off-the-cuff remark that was not meant to be an exact number count. He said, "There COULD be a million combinations!" He did not say, "There are precisely one million combinations." He could have meant it either way. There was more than one way to interpret what he said.
This is a strange situation because the wording suggests that Barnes is using hyperbole ("there COULD be a million combinations..."), but mathematically the number of possible combinations with a 0-9 keypad and a 6 digit readout is exactly 1 million (10x10x10x10x10x10 = 1,000,000). So he is technically not using hyperbole but that was his intent. So it's both hyperbole and not hyperbole at the same time. It's kind of fascinating, actually.
25th Jun 2009
The Karate Kid III (1989)
Question: What's the story behind Mike Barnes? How old is he? Where does he come from?
Chosen answer: Mike Barnes is another karate champion, someone known in the karate tournament world as being brutal and excellent. It is never stated where he comes from, but it is far enough away to require a plane flight. His age is also never stated, but as it is an under-18 tournament and he can drive a car, we can assume it is either 16 or 17.
Answer: Mike most likely comes from north of LA (northern California, Oregon, or Washington) based on the fact that he said "if I come DOWN here and beat this Larusso kid..." Usually the term for travelling "down here" refers to coming from the north, "up here" is coming from the south, and "out here" or "over here" is from coming from the east or west.
It's not quite as simple as that. It wouldn't be unusual for someone from Kansas City, Chicago, or Detroit, etc. to describe traveling to LA as going "down" there.
26th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Plot hole: Weeks if not months have passed since Mando has been on Nevarro, with the power shift and the Empire taking control. The Mandalorian community was small, but he finds the Armorer in the old lair that says that she will leave only when she will have salvaged what remains. Since 'what remains' is a pile of armor pieces, and she is carrying already a cart full of those, it appears absurd that she'd still not finished with that task, especially considering that we see how the smelting process is pretty swift (she melts an armor piece and shapes it into the signet in the space of a brief conversation!) and even if every single one of the Mandalorians left their armor behind, it'd be just a couple of carts' worth of metal.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This entry presumes that the armorer has done nothing but collect armor pieces, and plans to continue doing nothing but collect armor pieces until she is finished. She never says that. She merely says that she won't leave until she is done collecting everything. She could be doing any number of other tasks she never says anything about because it isn't important. It is also never said when she started collecting armor pieces, it could have been just before we see her.
We can make all sorts of assumptions; she was grieving for a time, she had to go into hiding, she had to collect the armor pieces from various places? Fascinating, but if we do not presume anything, what we get is the Armorer (known as and for just that) salvaging armor (saying "I will not abandon this place until I have salvaged what remains") at a place established as raided a long time ago. What she had to salvage was meager (just a handful of Mandos) and does it fast.
In order to be a plot hole it would have to be impossible for the armorer to take this long to collect armor pieces. Since we don't know everything she has been doing off-screen, this doesn't count as a plot hole. You have to ignore all logical and reasonable possibilities to get to the point where this is a plot hole, and you list more than one in your reply.
I listed them because they are the kind of things we can assume to justify "Events or character decisions which only exist to benefit the plot, rather than making sense.", definition of plot hole in the website. We can make up all sort of background story, but nothing changes the fact that a character is at a place raided weeks prior and in the middle of performing a task that the way shown here is not going to take more than a few hours.
It's the "rather than making sense" part that this entry lacks. There are several reasons that make sense why this could take long, chief among them the fact that we don't know how long she has actually been collecting armor pieces. If, for example she said "I've been doing this since the attack", that would be one thing. She doesn't say that. She just says she won't leave until this particular task is done, not that it was her only task. She could have just started.
Collecting armor as specific task is something I find as such for the first time in your first comment. The attack happened shortly after Mando left, and the planet has been under a tight Imperial control since. Nothing leads to believe that the pile of amor is not salvaged but was brought back through some quest that stretched out for weeks until she finally decided exactly that day to start carting them to the furnace, which is what she's in the middle of when they arrive.
27th Jan 2021
Lethal Weapon 2 (1989)
Factual error: Diplomatic immunity does not give a foreign diplomat carte blanche to openly and brazenly commit extreme crimes in their host country. Arjen Rudd and his men are known money launderers. Once Riggs begins harassing Rudd at the consulate, Rudd launches a violent campaign against the Los Angeles Police Department, assassinating half a dozen police officers. At the very least, the United States would be well within their rights to expel Rudd from the country and bar his re-entry. There is no way the South African government would oppose prosecution of Rudd given these circumstances, doing so would fracture all diplomatic relations with the United States. It is absurd for Rudd to shoot a cop and smugly proclaim "Diplomatic immunity!" after he has done so because it is not a "get out of jail free" card. If Rudd were expelled, he could face prosecution in his home country.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Before the federal government would declare a diplomat persona non grata, which would be a serious degradation of the diplomatic relations between two countries), they would first have to do an investigation. The entire movie seems to take place in less than a week. There was probably not enough time, especially since Riggs and Murtaugh are playing things close to the vest and not letting people know what they are doing. As for the "Diplomatic immunity" line, he's just being insulting towards Murtaugh.
While it is true that it's difficult to actually expel a diplomat, the mistake is that Rudd acts as if it is impossible. The movie operates as if diplomatic immunity makes it impossible to arrest a diplomat. And Rudd is doing more than just taunting Roger, he believes right up until the end that he can't be held accountable for his actions, up to and including murdering a cop.
26th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Stupidity: In a throwaway comedy line, the Mythrol says that he still does not have vision in his left eye. For unexplained reasons that is the one guy that they take along for the dangerous base assault mission; a wimpy, obese, half-blind accountant. And for the whole mission he is quite a good shot, even (left-handed one at that, even). Cara is the Marshall and Greef the de facto 'ruler' of the town, who appears to be the biggest if not the only one of the planet; are we to believe the whole planet is so small that its whole defence is composed by these two people and there's not a single other able-bodied person on it? (00:11:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The base was supposed to be practically empty, run by a skeleton crew. It was meant to be a simple, in and out mission and the Mythrol was just supposed to be their driver. He goes with the group inside, against his better judgment, because the lava tide will be coming in soon. It is never stated that the four members of the team are the only able-bodied people, they simply believed that the four they bring would be enough. Which as it turns out was completely accurate, given the fact the team succeeds even with the base being full of stormtroopers. Also, you don't have to be a stereotypical tough guy to be a good shot. There's plenty of people that aren't soldiers and are far from in good shape that are perfectly capable with a gun.
And that are also blind in one eye? I figured that the lava tide was just an excuse to bring him in - no such tide is shown to affect the area, even if the mission takes them longer than they anticipated.
You say in your mistake that the blind in one eye comment was meant to be humorous. No reason to believe he was being completely honest. But yes, it is not unheard of for people with limited or even no vision in one eye to still be a good shot. It only limits your depth perception and peripheral vision. No reason you can't hit a target right in front of you with only one good eye. Regardless of whether or not the lava tide coming in was a true statement or just an excuse to get him to come in, it isn't a stupidity mistake that the group brings him in. These mistakes are not for actions by characters you would not agree with were you in their shoes. This category of mistake is for an action so daft it defies logic, such as running back into the building with the killer you just escaped.
"I'll bring my pudgy accountant to my base infiltration mission, he has a speeder bike" doesn't sound exactly logical, no (other than the fact that he's a funny character and helps making the episode entertaining). If he was supposed to just be their driver and then an extraordinary circumstance such as their speeder bike being destroyed forced him to abandon a "Keep the speeder running" (as Mando says en route - in a typical trope, they are discussing their roles and basic mission objectives only when they are already well on the way and have zero scouting or tools) plan, it would have followed some kind of logic, but that is not what happens, they drag him in. When do you ever see in a robbery/heist movie the characters tell their getaway guy "come on in, we could use one more guy with a gun actually, forget our only escape mean"? By any logic he'd just slow them down, he even just showed them that he's not any good at picking a lock.
It doesn't rise to the level of a Stupidity mistake. Bringing him isn't an action that is so stupid it seems unbelievable. He doesn't even appear to be as much of a hindrance to the mission as you suggest, they seem to operate just fine with him there.
Of course they are the good guys and it all works out in the end and it made for a fine episode, but for all we know and they know, they dragged a non-combat trained and physically unfit accountant to their commando mission, the fighting part. It's already a big stretch that the magistrate and the marshall of a whole planet have to resort on that guy of all people for a getaway driver role (he's not even portrayed as being a great pilot, since Cara drives the vehicle they will escape with: he's literally there because he's got a bike and he's an indentured servant), but it sure seems unbelievable they brought him - inside the base - all of a sudden with no story justification about it (which would have been really simple) and contradicting the original plan.
26th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Stupidity: Ahsoka gives the magistrate a day to surrender for no real reason - she has no advantage doing so nor it is any more honorable or humane; she is in fact giving Morgan time to organize herself with hostages as she explicitly threatens to. Had she finished her assault without this senseless ultimatum, barely anyone would have been in any danger or tortured for a full day like it happened.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Tano doesn't know the strength of the Magistrate's forces. Djarin tells her that there are ex-military, hired mercenaries inside armed to the teeth and that he doesn't believe that even with the force she would survive. Tano agrees with this assessment and also asks if Djarin saw any hostages inside, so until then she didn't even know for sure whether or not there were. It is implied that had Tano continued her assault she would have been killed. There is indeed no stated reason why Tano gives a single day as an ultimatum, but it seems reasonable to assume that prior to meeting Djarin and The Child she would have used this time to plan her 2nd assault.
I think we disagree on the idea that it is implied that if she continued her assault she would have been killed; she killed 25% of their troops in their first assault, and then in the second one, which was in the open and broad daylight, she killed or disarmed everyone else including the main villain and the henchman, who was then killed by Mando, together with 2 guards. Mando was only instrumental in saving the hostages Morgan took after her threat - which, by the way, was expressed in a way that did not even imply necessarily that she was just taking the people hostages and not kill them right away as punishment. The evil henchman says it correctly "We'll be ready when she returns"; waiting only weakens her position in every way, since the stakes and/or disparity in forces is not shown adequately.
You seem to be ignoring the part where Djarin tells her that even with her skills she would be killed and she agrees. Whether or not that is actually true based on what we see doesn't really matter, it's their opinion based on what they know at the time. It seems fairly clear that she withdraws because she doesn't know what she's up against behind those walls.
She literally laughs behind his back when he says that line, and it is contradicted in every way from what we see, so it seems to be ignored by the writers first and foremost. They say the rule of writing is "Show, don't tell", I'd be fine with "Don't show the opposite of what you are telling." You can argue that it's more alike a plot hole than a simple stupidity, but I think you can agree that for what it is shown, Ahsoka had no other reason to wait for (more than) a day other than give the main character a chance to show up, and an ultimatum considerably worsens her position. It's not even clear why she took so long to make a move on the city, Bo-Katan (who does not have a direct path of communication on her) knew where she was, but the first time we see her it is also the first time she has a contact with the Magistrate.
No, I do not believe the writers included a laugh as an indication that Ahsoka believes the exact opposite of what Djarin states and that she agrees with his assessment that she is outmatched just to keep him happy. Yes, they do portray her as very powerful inside the city, but there are two people in there fighting at the same time which splits the enemies forces. Yes, giving yourself time to prepare also gives your enemy time to prepare. Sometimes there's no way to avoid that. This is neither a Stupidity nor a plot hole.
"Splits" is an overstatement; she takes the whole force down herself. We both agree that "she regroups after a preliminary assault and then prevails through teamwork" is the general idea of what it should happen, but it's not what it is shown. Remove Mando from the episode and you would only have (assuming she adopts the same effortlessy successful strategy to attack head-on a prepared enemy: she gets inside with no problem whatsoever!) a couple prisoners as casualties, which is something that Ahsoka herself brought upon her. There's not even an indication that she was preparing any strategy, since she asks about the presence of any prisoner while she is already going back to face the Magistrate.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: Spock is faster and more intelligent that anyone else on the ship - what he does to the warp drive is a very quick and dirty fix to get them moving. Had anyone else tried it, they would undoubtedly have got it wrong, resulting in the destruction of the ship - remember that the Enterprise is largely crewed by trainees at this point. The only other person who might have pulled it off, namely Scotty, is out of commission, leaving Spock as the only one left to do the job.
Tailkinker ★