Question: What's the story behind Mike Barnes? How old is he? Where does he come from?
BaconIsMyBFF
25th Jun 2009
The Karate Kid III (1989)
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.
11th May 2017
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: Did Obi-Wan know Anakin and Padme are married? Since she thinks Obi-Wan could help them with Anakin seeing with the force that Padme would die giving birth after Anakin broke the Jedi code of getting married. Doesn't it seem that Obi-Wan would not help after what Anakin had done, unless he knew about it?
Chosen answer: Obi Wan didn't know they were married. He only realises Anakin is the father of Padme's child after noticing her emotional response when he asks if she knows where Anakin is. Even though Anakin has broken the Jedi code Padme still thinks Obi Wan might help them because he is their best friend. At worst Anakin would be expelled from the Jedi and the controversy would end Padme's political career but she makes it clear she doesn't care about any of that. Anakin, however does and shoots down the idea.
The fact that they keep the relationship secret baffles me a bit. I mean, they live together in a city. They were obviously shown as close in AOTC.
It makes very little sense, to the point of being absurd. It is portrayed as if Obi-Wan and Anakin are best friends, but Obi-Wan never even asks where Anakin lives when he's not on duty.
It's not like Obi-Wan and Anakin carpool or invite each other to dinner. They are Jedi partners, in service of the Republic and Jedi Order. Even if it were all happening on 1 planet Anakin and Padme could easily keep their marriage a secret, let alone from Jedi who travel from system to system and are extremely busy all the time.
20th Jan 2021
The Mandalorian (2019)
Chapter 5: The Gunslinger - S1-E5
Stupidity: Mando's ally breaks the fob saying he's got it memorized. Memorize a tracking device, that's new.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He means he memorized the chain code, the biometric data stored on the tracking fob. Calican already knows Fennec is headed towards the dune sea so they don't need the fob to track her location.
Beyond the dune sea, is what he says, yes, which is an enormous desert on the vaste planet. Memorizing the biometric data does not help at all without the tracking device. I took it that he memorized the positional data, but if I know someone's last known location, and that they are headed "beyond the Sahara desert" it is not really helping me find them, is it? You can make a guess, of course.
The chain code is what is used to identify the target, when they are turned in to collect the bounty. You don't need the tracking fob if you already know all the numbers in the chain code. That's the part that he memorized. It doesn't appear that the tracking fob gives you precise location data, so "In the Sahara dessert" is all you get. If the tracking fob did give more precise location data then every idiot in the galaxy would be a bounty hunter.
To identify the target he has the puck already. My point is that "Got it all memorized" is a plot device that works when your target is stationary (like The Child in the first episode), not a moving target. He smashed a -tracking - device (which took it where he is now) and then says he's "got it all memorized." You can't memorize tracking, and the chain code simply includes data like the age that are of no use for a target already well known like Fennec. What he memorized was her last known location at most... which if the fobs are as vague as you mention (one hopes that they are not just beeping dowsing rods) would make even less sense, because he wouldn't have a clue about her position and course and could be off by hundreds of miles.
The chain code contains identifying information that proves what target you've brought in. In another episode a character worries that if his chain code is scanned he will go to prison because he's a wanted man. Yes, the tracking fob is used to hunt down your target but that's not why Mando wants it and why the other bounty hunter destroys it. Without the fob, even if Mando catches Fennec he won't be able to collect the bounty because he doesn't know the chain code.
If we go with this theory, it sounds like Mando wants the money (and recognition) to bring Fennec in, but he does not care about that nor he was asking for it; the fob has a different use, and the chain code is memorized separately from that anyway (he was given in the first episode tracking The Child a fob without a chain code). The chain code is simply a code with the essential information about the subject, like a personal document. If that what he memorized, it's as if he said "Don't worry, we'll find her in the desert, I got her social security number." And if he captured Fennec, which was needed alive, he would have gotten the recognition no matter what.
I tend to agree with the mistake that the tracking fob is receiving updated biometric coordinate data, so there's no way memorize updated data, at most it would be memorizing last known coordinates. However, I would advise using terms like "Baby Yoda" if you want to be taken seriously, otherwise it looks like you haven't watched the show. There's no need to use incorrect terms just because you think people won't know who "The Child" or "Grogu" is.
1st Aug 2018
Coco (2017)
Question: Why doesn't Miguel fall through the bridge like Hector? Miguel doesn't have a picture on the table stand.
Answer: Miguel isn't dead yet. He's slowly fading away the more he stays in the land of the dead and will eventually be stuck there just like everyone else. Until he fades away he can still walk on the bridge but he needs a blessing from a family member in the land of the dead to actually get back.
While yes he is not dead, the rest of the movie becomes entirely pointless since this means he could have just walked back. Security wouldn't have stopped him because he is alive so they know that it is urgent for him to cross the bridge.
He can't just walk back. He can walk on the bridge but he can't actually get back to the land of the living unless he gets a blessing from a family member.
It was Miguel taking the guitar that put him in his dead/not dead state, not crossing the bridge. Miguel was already only able to be seen and interact with the dead while they were all still in the cemetery on the living side of the bridge. It stands to reason then that crossing back to where he started wouldn't help.
4th Aug 2006
My Cousin Vinny (1992)
Corrected entry: Why is Joe Pesci referred to as "Mr. Gambini" continuously by the judge, if he is supposedly "Jerry Gallo" and later "Jerry Callo"? Why doesn't the judge call him "Mr. Gallo" if that's who he thinks he is?
Correction: Early in the movie, Joe Pesci explains to the judge that Gambini is his "working name" and the name he is registered under is "Gallo" and later, "Callo." The judge buys it. Why? Who knows? But because they explained it that way, the judge is not making mistakes by calling him Gambini.
In addition, Vinny directly tells Judge Haller to continue calling him "Gambini" when the Judge first questions him about the two names.
2nd Jan 2017
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Question: I have never understood why Luke and Leia needed to be hidden with two different families. As a princess, Leia is actually in the public eye. It would have been much safer to let Owen and Beru raise her along with Luke. Why keep them apart?
Answer: The reason they are split is so if one is discovered they still have the other. Leia certainly lives a much more public life but she could easily be passed off as the daughter of Bail Organa since she takes his last name and lives as his daughter. The real question is why on earth would Obi Wan give Luke to family that Vader is aware of and let him keep the Skywalker name?
Adding to this, Tatooine wouldn't be somewhere where Vader would want to go. He doesn't have fond memories there e.g. death of his mother, slaying all those Tuscan raiders.
Also, if I remember correctly, no-one knew she was having twins. Everyone knew she was pregnant, so when Luke showed up it wasn't necessarily questioned. Leia was given to another family so no-one would put it together that she was also Vader's child and therefore hiding her from existence.
Answer: Nobody knew Luke and Leia were alive, most did not know they existed, others thought they were dead. If someone with the name of Skywalker were around, it could be anyone. Aunt Uncle, Cousin, not necessarily the Skywalker. Besides, the Empire was busy fighting and maintaining control of an entire Galaxy.
It certainly could be a popular name, but it is still tempting fate since this particular Skywalker is being raised by Anakin's step-brother. A step-brother that Anakin is not only aware of but has personally met. Also, once Vader finds out that the pilot who blew up the Death Star was named Skywalker, he knows that young man must be his son.
Answer: Obi-Wan said they needed to be taken somewhere where the Sith could not sense their presence and then Yoda said they needed to be separated, which one could assume was to increase the chance the Sith won't sense them. They also made it seem like Padme was still pregnant when she died, meaning everyone would think her child (ren) died before being born. Leia being in the public eye wasn't really a factor or concern. Bail and his wife had always talked about adopting a girl, so when they took Leia, no-one would question where she came from, especially if the Organas appeared loyal to the Emperor. In "There is Another" (from "From a Certain Point of View", considered canon), it's suggested Yoda's plan was to train Leia and not Luke. So sending Luke to live with his family would hopefully limit his development of the force, limit his involvement with the Empire, and if discovered, draw attention away from Leia.
2nd Nov 2020
Alien (1979)
Question: The Alien brings Brett and Dallas back to its nest alive in order to create more Aliens. It seems that Brett had died in the process but Dallas is still alive. How then would the alien impregnate them without facehuggers complete with an egg?
Answer: It's possible that Brett was the only one being turned into an egg and that Dallas was merely stuck to the wall to be the eventual facehugger host.
Dallas is more than just merely stuck to the wall. He is in physical agony, his eyes appear to no longer work properly, and he has barely enough strength to muster more than a couple words. And the words he can get out are him pleading with Ripley to end his suffering.
Rather than burning Dallas to death it would have been more humane to let him blow up with the ship.
Perhaps so, but Dallas was pleading for his suffering to end right then and there. It appeared that the burning was no more agonizing than what he was going through, which means he must have been in immense pain already.
Answer: Actually the alien was using Brett and Dallas to make new facehugger eggs. The scene, only shown in the Director's Cut, shows Brett partway through being turned into an egg and Dallas in what appears to be the very beginning of this process. This scene was cut from the theatrical release and as such, James Cameron did not include this feature of the alien lifecycle in the sequel. Cameron showed the eggs are laid by a queen and the franchise has continued with this approach since Aliens and has never revisited the idea that alien eggs are created from the bodies of humans. Since this scene only appears in the Director's Cut, its status as canon remains in question. However, some fans reconcile this by theorizing that in the absence of a queen a single alien can use human bodies to create more facehuggers.
18th Nov 2020
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Question: Why did John Travolta have his gun drawn while talking to the guy in the car who he accidentally shoots?
Answer: He is careless with it, and doesn't think about if it might accidentally fire. There are safety protocols when dealing with guns for a reason. Gangsters just chose to ignore them.
22nd Nov 2020
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Question: Can someone please put to bed a question that has been raised and not answered...why would the terrorists try to blow McClane up with grenades that have enough of a delay to make a quick coffee in?
Answer: There is no in-universe explanation...they didn't go to an arms dealer and say, "Give us your longest-fused grenades, we want to give our target a sporting chance." There is no deleted scene where Col. Stuart wonders aloud why those grenades took so long to explode, while making himself a coffee. This-the hero in a deadly situation and escaping in the nick of time, regardless of how long grenades actually take to explode in the real world-is an action movie trope and nothing more, in a film that is chock full of them. It would be a pretty sad movie, not to mention a bad one, if McClane got blown to bits by grenades, and the bad guys won.
But surely they could have filmed this scene in slo-mo to stretch out the 7 second delay to whatever it becomes, OR edited it in such a way it appears to take longer when it actually doesn't?
The grenade fuse time is deliberately lengthened so the audience can process what is happening. The audience has to see the danger of the grenades, understand that McClane must get out of the cockpit without the bad guys shooting him, see McClane think of the ejector seat plan, and then execute that plan. It's ridiculously unrealistic but McClane is meant to be clever and resourceful so the audience has to see him work out the problem. If you used slo-mo it would make it seem like McClane instantly figured out a solution, which would make him look superhuman.
Answer: It's worth noting that they wouldn't have to pull the pins out of all the grenades, just one. That one would cause the others to explode as well.
31st Aug 2020
50 First Dates (2004)
Corrected entry: Lucy's dad brings up the idea for her to paint his shed. The script should have had Lucy wanting to do that on her own - without that prompting there'd be no need for them to bother repainting it every night, which they clearly don't enjoy doing.
Correction: Lucy's dad and brother go to great lengths to re-enact everything that happened the day of the accident, including having Lucy paint the garage. They don't really want to do any of the things they do on that day, including eating the cake and watching The Sixth Sense.
But why wouldn't they just go and pick the pineapple instead of dad prompting her to paint the shed? Then he wouldn't have to paint over it every night.
Because painting the shed makes her happy. They are sacrificing their time and effort, at great exhaustion, to keep her happy.
Going to pick the pineapple puts them in public and gives a much greater chance of her finding out the secret and having a bad day.
It absolutely does, and it does lead to some issues when she gets pulled over for expired tags. Dad and brother's plan was not very well planned out and certainly wasn't smart, but that doesn't constitute a mistake in the film. People make poor decisions all the time.
21st Sep 2020
X-Men: First Class (2011)
Question: If Magneto didn't kill Shaw, what would they have done? It seems like killing him was the only possible way to stop him.
Answer: Charles wanted to incapacitate Shaw and all he needed to do this was to get the helmet off. Once the helmet is off Charles could freeze Shaw and they could figure out a way to hold him. With no helmet Shaw is very little threat (if at all) to Charles. Erik kills a defenseless man unnecessarily.
Actually Xavier says that he can only control this man for so long. Meaning he was struggling keeping him frozen like that. They didn't have forever. An option for Xavier could have been to release Shaw once he knew what Erik was going to do but that could cause Shaw to go nuclear on the spot and kill everyone.
Yes, he could only hold him for so long but instead of taking the opportunity to incapacitate/capture him, Erik steals the helmet, gloats, and then slowly pushes a coin through his head.
I'm not sure what the actual plan was. Charles freezing was the only thing preventing Shaw from killing everyone. Even if Erik manages to wrap Shaw into something, as soon as his mind is free he will be able to use his abilities. He killed him slowly, which was unnecessary, but killing him was the only option IMHO.
31st Aug 2020
Jurassic Park (1993)
Character mistake: When Genarro is explaining to Hammond that he is at the park to report Hammond's progress to the investors, he says "In 48 hours if they're not impressed, I'm not impressed. We'll shut you down, John." He should have said "If I'm not impressed, they're not impressed" since the investors would be shutting down the park on his advice, not the other way around.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He'll be the one to shut it down, not the investors. They gave him the ability to do that. So once he hears they are not impressed, he'll be shutting it down.
That still makes the statement backwards, since he is representing the investors interests, not his own. The way he words it suggests even if they weren't impressed but he was, he could keep the park open of his own accord. The buck stops with the investors.
There's actually already a submission just like this one in the Corrections section, with the correction - provided by JC Fernandez - noting that Genarro is referring to the scientists that have to be convinced that the park is ready to open, and that if the scientists aren't convinced, then Genarro will not be convinced either, and he will notify the investors of it.
Didn't see that correction before. When reviewing the scene in question Genarro does ever so slightly gesture behind himself when he says "they", which I had not noticed before.
14th Aug 2020
Frequency (2000)
Factual error: A ham radio requires the person to hold down the button while talking. Numerous times in the movie they are talking without pushing the button.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is actually subtly addressed in the film. The magic which allows the radio to work across time also allows the two men to speak without pressing the button. There is a moment where Frank wonders what is going on with the radio and presses the button a few times to talk but then notices that he doesn't have to press the button to be heard.
If that was true, then it wouldn't make sense for them to continue to show Frank and John hitting the squawk bar throughout the film.
That is a separate issue. The mistake entry states that you need to hold the button to talk on a ham radio, which is true, but the magic ham radio in the film doesn't require it. If the actors continue to occasionally press the button that could be considered a character mistake but it could also simply be a force of habit by the characters.
13th Nov 2018
Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade (1989)
Question: They didn't make it out of the cave with the grail because they dawdled... I wonder, would someone be able to make it out running at a dead sprint once they crossed the seal? And if so, does that mean that they're home free? Or would disaster follow them outside of the cave?
Answer: The implication is that disaster would follow them outside of the cave as well. It wouldn't make much sense if you could simply outrun the disaster.
"Followed by disaster" is a kind of curse, a thing not common in Christianity. It doesn't make much sense anyhow. A seal is just a dot - OK, so let's at least grant that the seal represents a circle that the grail has to stay in. Who decided where those borders are? The grail was taken there during the first crusade. That was closer to 1938 than it was to 33 AD. The three knights could move the grail about then. Why not afterwards? The knights could have built the traps. But the borders could only have been set by god, in an unusually late and completely atypical miracle.
There are several examples of curses in the Christian Bible: Lot's wife is turned into a pillar of salt for looking back at Sodom, the plagues visited upon Egypt, Adam and Eve are cursed for eating fruit from the tree of knowledge, etc. The knights did not move the grail around after finding it, they stayed in the temple for 150 years and then two left leaving the third behind. The great seal and it's restriction was already in place when the knights got there.
Where in the movie is that stated? I interpreted the knight's story as them having made that place. Looks like it isn't actually specified. But if God made it, then I submit that he would have used Greek, not Latin, for the stepping stones. (All of those curses are from the old testament. The book where god kills firstborn children as long as they're Egyptian. Grail is by definition new testament where you turn the other cheek. There simply are no curses in the gospel, that's just not how Jesus rolled).
The tests were made by the knights, but the seal had God's power in it. Just like the cup.
It's still a bit dodgy. What if you take a shovel and dig yourself a back door? Basically this film really excels at stuff that makes no sense but helps the storytelling, or to be precise, creates dramatic effects.
Every fictional story is like that in some way. That's why it's called fictional. It's just a story.
Not a particularly convincing argument, "stuff happens for no reason all the time", if I may say so. Why is this website even here then? The fact is that some stories are more coherent than others. (♫ "In olden days, a hole in the plot, would seem to matter, quite a lot. Now heaven knows, anything goes..." ♫);).
It's the difference in what story they want told. Is it a fairy tale or based on actual events? A huge difference in plausibility between the two. The site is there to look at mistakes, not how believable the story is.
It is not set in another universe so plausibility isn't somehow suspended. Maybe take a look at the categories recognised by this website. Plot holes, factual errors, even stupidity. (They? Who are they?).
It is set in a fictional universe because it's not a true story. With "they" I mean the writers/director. Mistakes in a plot (plot holes) have nothing to do with how believable the story is. As long as it's plausible, it's not a mistake.
Pretty sure it's the same universe, just with some added characters/events. What about the total lack of spaceships or orcs or talking animals for example? The seal business is not a mistake YET, but it's very dodgy because no-one knows how it works or why. Like all Indys "trapped" secret places, it's (among other things) unclear who resets the traps for the next visitor. We can't brush it ALL off as "the hand of god" every time.
Huge amounts of stuff in films isn't exhaustively explained. Doesn't mean there isn't an explanation that's perfectly believable. There's zero evidence either way to say how "followed by disaster" would manifest, and just because there's not a thorough explanation doesn't mean that it's "dodgy", and it's not worth bickering about either, because there's no concrete answer either way.
OK but I would like to note that not everyone who offers creative explanations has recently seen the movie; some people just invent their own. E.g. "followed by disaster" is not an actual explanation from the movie, it was just one of the suggestions made here and only here. Or the ones on my own question below. All I'm saying is, it's very hard to tell what the "rules" / "logic" of this place are supposed to be, so I understand what the OP was driving at.
8th Oct 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Other mistake: After the train crash the news crews and sheriff are interviewing the surviving corrections officer. He boasts how heroic he was to rescue his partner from the wreckage, claiming that he was his partner and he would do the same for him. The only problem is that they are surprised when they find that same surviving corrections officer several scenes later and rush him to the hospital. Why would they be surprised to find an officer they already knew about?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The first corrections officer had been exposed as a liar and made up the story that Kimble and Copeland were dead. Nobody believed he heroically saved his partner. Everyone assumed since the partner hadn't been found right away that he died in the wreck. It never occurred to anyone that Kimble would put his own life on the line to save a guard, so actually finding the guard alive was a surprise.
There is nothing formally wrong with the order of events here. The assumption is that the second officer's whereabouts are known at the time of the senior officer's story - but that is actually only an assumption. Finding the second officer would of course not be important to the main story in any way, and thus this sub-story was not explained in the movie. To word it an alternative better way, why would the senior officer make up this story of saving the second officer, if the officer had not been located yet?
The second officer's whereabouts are most certainly not known when the first officer is interviewed. The first officer is interviewed the night of the crash and the second officer is found the next morning.
27th Jan 2020
General questions
When I was a little kid I checked out a Batman graphic novel from the library. It had a lot of his rogues gallery in it, most if not all of whom were killed in it. I specifically remember Catwoman being shot and her dying words were along the lines of "Batman, I'm so cold." Batman then kissed her before she died. Does anyone know what the name of this graphic novel/storyline is?
Answer: All Stars #17?
Based on my Google search results, "All-Star Batman" is a more recent publication. The year I read the book in question was probably 1993, so it was probably published in the late 80s or early 90s.
I believe the answer should have been DC Super-Stars #17. That issue features the death of the Earth Two Selina Kyle as part of the origin story of her daughter, Helena Kyle (The Huntress).
That's not it either, unfortunately. I specifically remember Killer Croc being in this, because it was the first time I ever heard of him, and he didn't debut until 1983, six years after DC Superstars #17. I think Batman killed Joker at the end out of revenge for Catwoman. With so many other characters being killed in it, I'm pretty certain it was an Elseworld story and not connected to whatever the main DC universe is or was at the time.
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.