Question: Hank bears no resemblance to his father, but strongly resembles his mother. Bobby bears no resemblance to Hank (or seemingly Peggy), but bears a strong resemblance to Hank's father. Is it actually possible for a person to bear such a strong resemblance to one of their Grandparents if they are only getting half their genes from that Grandparent's child and that child bears no resemblance to that particular parent?
BaconIsMyBFF
8th Jan 2020
King of the Hill (1997)
Chosen answer: The short answer is "yes", it is possible to resemble your Grandparent even if your parent doesn't resemble your Grandparent. The old adage is "it's not like mixing paint", meaning combining genes doesn't always get the same result. It's why full siblings don't always look exactly alike even though they have the same genetic makeup. I look next to nothing like my paternal grandmother but I have a child that greatly resembles her.
Is it a mistake then that Hank's Japanese half-brother strongly resembles him, and by extension Hank's mother, or is that still a small possibility?
Sort of. These are animated characters, and the style of animation isn't particularly detailed. The resemblance between the two is played up for laughs. But there are plenty of real life examples of people that aren't related at all but greatly resemble one another. Famous examples are Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Javier Bardem, or Will Ferrell and Chad Smith.
18th Feb 2020
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
Factual error: It is long-established in Star Trek canon that onboard diagnostics can detect any animate intruders on Federation vessels. Any living thing that exists upon a Federation vessel can be identified, and its location specifically noted on Federation property. How is it, then, that there are rats aboard the Regula I space station (as observed by Doctor McCoy) that haven't been eradicated?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is not established that Regula 1 has the same internal sensors that a starship has.
It is definitely established, however, that the Regula 1 space station is conducting the most highly-classified technological research and development in the entire Federation: The Genesis Project, which entailed re-engineering whole worlds to create new ecosystems where no life existed before. If anything, Regula 1 should be equipped with even more sensitive and discriminating biological sensors than any starship in the Federation, for the express purpose of preventing biological contamination of their experiments. So, Regula 1 must have necessarily possessed the most sophisticated biological sensors available. As Dr. Carol Marcus emphasized, the Genesis Project couldn't risk contamination by so much as a microbe, nevermind foot-long rats creeping around the space station.
None of the scanning shown in the film was done by the Regula 1 station. The Reliant is what scanned the planet where Khan was found. Even if Regula 1 did have highly advanced sensors there is nothing to suggest anyone has the time or need to regularly scan for pests on the station itself. The presence of a pest in the Genesis cave itself would have been an error, but not on the station. A pest on the station has no bearing on the Genesis project itself. There are too many assumptions for this to be considered a movie mistake.
The rat was not shown in the Genesis Cave, it was shown aboard the Regula space station, where the Genesis Device itself was constructed before it was beamed inside the planetoid for a test run. The point you're missing is that the space station had rats crawling around inside, but a rat infestation wouldn't be tolerated at an ultra-top-secret research and development facility for a project that was highly sensitive to biological contamination.
Regulus One was a scientific research laboratory, the rats seen roaming the passageways were lab rats that had escaped in the earlier confusion. Genesis was their current project, but I'm certain there were many other experiments going on. Bear in mind, Carol Marcus retorted that "they waited until everyone was on leave to do this." They only had a skeleton crew aboard at the time Khan boarded the station and killed those still present who were not transporting equipment to the cavern.
Suggested correction: It was most likely a lab rat that was inadvertently freed when Khan and his followers ransacked the station. The sensors probably pick it up just fine, everyone on the station is just too busy being dead to do anything about the stray rat scurrying about.
It's the 24th Century. After all the "animal cruelty" activism of the 20th and 21st Centuries, I very seriously doubt they are still experimenting on lab rats in the 24th Century. That practice would be deemed medieval, at best, and barbaric, at worst.
Suggested correction: When was this established? There are a number of episodes of the original series where the plot depends on them not being able to detect intruders. "Court Martial" for example.
"Court Martial" is probably the worst example you could use for your argument. In that episode, the vengeful Lieutenant Commander Benjamin Finney repeatedly sabotaged the Enterprise main computer (changing ship's chronological data records in order to fake his own "death" and frame Captain Kirk for a murder that never happened). Finney also sabotaged the computer and caused the Enterprise to fall out of orbit. Indeed, Spock discovered that the ship's computer was malfunctioning due to sabotage. So, Finney was more than capable of sabotaging the ship's bio-scanners, as well, to conceal himself from a whole-ship scan. In fact, they had to resort to a very sensitive audio-scan of the Enterprise, selectively eliminating the audible heartbeats of every known person aboard the ship. When all known heartbeats were eliminated, just one unknown heartbeat remained, and its owner couldn't be identified. Therefore, Finney had certainly tampered with the bio-scanner to conceal his whereabouts. It's very doubtful, however, that foot-long rats hacked the bio-scanners aboard the Regula research station to conceal their whereabouts.
Every time the Enterprise computer system reported an "intruder alert," and every time they asked the computer for the location of specific individuals and lifeforms anywhere aboard the ship. This was all well-established in the Original Series.
It's a big leap to go from that to they can detect any living being. It is explicitly established that under many circumstances they can't even detect a full grown man if they are in hiding. This is the whole basis of the plot of "Court Martial." Even as late as The Next Generation it is established that it is difficult to find someone if they're not wearing their communicator badge.
Yet they can detect single-celled organisms on a planet's surface from thousands of miles away. The technology certainly exists in the Star Trek universe, and especially for the highly-classified Genesis Experiment. In "The Wrath of Khan," Dr. Carol Marcus stipulates that the Genesis Experiment cannot be contaminated by so much as a microbe, and complete sterility is a condition for selecting a test planet. Yet they have foot-long rats scurrying around the Genesis research facility? That is a plot hole, a continuity problem and a factual error all rolled into one.
Reliant scanned the planet to search for any life forms. That scan was inaccurate and it read Khan's entire group (and presumably the Ceti eels) as non-specific, potential life matter. Reliant's crew speculates that it could just be some speck of matter and they are completely shocked to find multiple living humans there. If they were using these highly advanced sensors you claim they were using they would not have been surprised by the presence of humans at all. And even if they could, there is nothing to suggest they should also use those sensors for pest control on their space station.
Suggested correction: Obviously the first thing the rats did was chew through the cables to the lifeform scanners.
Which would set off alarms like crazy aboard the station because preventing biological contamination of the Genesis Experiment was a No.1 priority for Dr. Carol Marcus. Undoubtedly, the station was bristling with redundant bio-scanners.
All of which had been also chewed through! No, you make a good point.
Suggested correction: Someone on the Reliant had a pet rat and one of Khan's henchmen brought it aboard Regula I to torment the lab techs. (Yes, this sounds silly, but the point is that strange and unlikely things actually happen quite often and it's exactly what makes stories interesting. As long as an event can be rationalized, unlikelihood alone isn't enough to qualify as a mistake. If it really bothers you, you might get more mileage putting it under "stupidity" since it's obviously just a lazy horror cliche).
10th Feb 2020
The Terminator (1984)
Question: In the hotel room scene when the landlord/manager knocks on the door and asks if he has a dead cat in the room, why is the Terminator sitting down on the bed, especially turned away from the door? If the Terminator is an indefatigable machine only resembling a human on the outside, why would it ever be seen in a relaxed pose at all, and ignoring the sole point of entry to the room it's in?
Answer: I wouldn't call him sitting a "relaxed pose." The scene is brief, but at the time he's looking through Sarah's address book but we don't know what else he was doing. We see him sitting while repairing his arm and we see him sitting when making a telephone call. So he may have been doing other things that he couldn't do standing. As far as ignoring the door (which wasn't the sole point of entry since we see him go through the window), as a terminator machine, he doesn't really have to be on alert for an attack like a person would.
Answer: The T-800 is designed to blend in with the human race. As such it will act as a human does with the aim of maintaining its cover. Another example is why do they find clothes? Sure a naked man walking round is going to attract attention of police but they are capable of dealing with such situations.
That is true when the Terminator is among humans but in this scene it is alone in the room. The question remains why it sits, looking away from the door, if there is no-one else there.
The answer provided still works, based on how the Terminators are portrayed in the sequels. They will gradually learn more and more human behaviors and adapt them to their programming. In this case, sitting down when idle. Another example is the T-1000 giving a very human-like puzzled expression when he notices the silver mannequin. Also, the T-X in Terminator 3 smirks at numerous points throughout that movie when things go her way. None of these behaviors are done for the benefit of "blending in" and appear to simply be learned behaviors.
Answer: You're right, it doesn't make sense for the Terminator to sit facing away from the threat. In the second movie we see the Terminator standing the whole night in the same position, looking outside. It seems more verisimilar, except for the gun on his shoulder pointing back.
10th Feb 2020
Beauty and the Beast (1991)
Question: Gaston sings that he ate eggs to help him get large. Why didn't he say meat? Was he vegetarian? Was Disney deliberately supporting vegetarianism/respecting vegetarians? Are there any historical circumstances that I'm not aware of? Or am I just overanalyzing this matter?
Answer: Eggs are full of protein. Eating a lot of eggs is an excellent way to bulk up and build muscle mass.
Eggs are not good for you if you eat too many of them.
To quote Stephen Fry: "Well of course too much is bad for you, that's what "too much" means. If you had too much water it would be bad for you, wouldn't it? "Too much" precisely means that quantity which is excessive, that's what it means. Could you ever say "too much water is good for you"? I mean if it's too much it's too much. Too much of anything is too much. Obviously." That aside, while it used to be believed that the cholesterol content of eggs was a health risk, more recent studies have shown that dietary cholesterol doesn't affect blood cholesterol levels for most people. As such there's no real maximum limit on egg consumption beyond the aforementioned "too much of anything is too much".
I don't think Gaston cares much about his cholesterol.
They didn't even know the word.
Answer: While I was waiting for this question to be accepted, I found the answer to one of my questions myself. Gaston is indeed not vegetarian, considering he mentions his hunting trophies during the aforementioned song and earlier in the movie, he tells Belle to imagine him roasting his kill on the fire place.
8th Jan 2020
Common mistakes
Corrected entry: Characters that are supposed to be blood relatives, but have no familial resemblance.
Correction: Blood relatives do not always resemble each other.
That's not really a "common mistake", though since it's never a mistake to have blood relatives that do not resemble each other.
I mostly agree. Family members often look too different to be biologically related. Even if an effort is made, for example, to have a son look like his father, some things don't sync - like a different face shape/bone structure or skin tone (not due to tanning). One example of father/son dissimilarities are in The War of the Worlds - the boy playing Tom Cruise's son has a completely different facial shape/structure. Regarding skin tone, in Boyhood the sister of Mason has a different skin tone than the rest of the family - and it stands out.
I'm probably a bit sensitive to this since my family members don't all have a strong resemblance to each other, but it's absolutely possible, especially if your family tree is diverse in genetics/ appearance. It happens more often than not in movies, but it's not a mistake. (And who's to say that in many of these cases people weren't adopted?).
27th Jan 2020
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: If the clones believe Dooku is their leader, why are they against the droids, who are his allies?
Answer: The pilots didn't refuse to shoot down Dooku - they explain they have run out of rockets and they can't. The clone troopers have no idea that Dooku originally ordered for them to be made, only the Jedi council at that time know, which is explained earlier in the film.
Answer: The clones do not believe Dooku to be their leader. Dooku is the leader of the Separatists.
But they believe he was one of the people who was helping with ordering them (which he was) and refused to shoot him down when Anakin asked.
No, they believe Sifo Dyas was the Jedi who ordered their creation. They do not refuse to shoot down Dooku, they tried and failed.
They believe it was both. They used "we're out of rockets" as an excuse to not kill him as they knew he was one of their leaders. Some of the corrections even state it, and one of the answers does as well.
The Jedi and the Chancellor are their leaders, not Dooku. Dooku is the enemy. Dooku's plan was to gather the largest droid army in the galaxy to counter the republic so that the clone army would be deployed. For Palpatine the seperatists were only a distraction for the Jedi and an excuse to deploy the clones. The clones obeyed the Jedi and Republic until order 66. Dooku was led to believe he would become one of the leaders eventually, if he knew about order 66, but Palpatine had other plans.
So are you saying the people who were saying that in the corrections and questions are wrong?
There's one correction I saw that says that, and yes, I believe that correction to be incorrect. There is nothing in the film to suggest that the clones were aware (either consciously or otherwise) that Dooku played any part in their creation and chose not to kill him. If that was the case and George Lucas wanted the audience to be aware, it would have been less subtle and more obvious. It's not even supposed to be obvious that Dooku and Darth Tyranus are the same person until the end of the movie but that reveal was ruined by pre-release marketing and merchandise.
But you can see the rockets in the gunship when the clone pilot refuses to fire them at Dooku.
Plus, they could've also used lasers or etc. instead.
Plus, why wouldn't Dooku and Sidious have had this feature installed anyway if they knew they would've been against him otherwise?
Sidious already was the leader of the clone troops, as Chancellor of the republic. All he had to do was wait for the war to spread the Jedi out over the galaxy so they will be more vulnerable and then execute order 66 to take them out. Dooku or Grievous were never a part of that plan. This is proven by Sidious ordering Vader to go to the Mustafar system and kill the rest of the separatist leaders. If Grievous was still alive he would have been eliminated too. Sidious' new apprentice Vader had already killed Dooku by then anyway.
That's not exactly the point though.
The point the clones did not refuse to fire on Dooku. Dooku is not protected against them. Not by Palpatine, not by himself as Tyrannus.
The programming of the clone troopers has been explored extensively in additional canon materials outside of the films. There has never been any mention of specific programming put in place to keep the clones from killing Dooku and Sidious. The ship still having rockets after the clone says they are out is more likely to be a simple continuity error rather than a subtle hint (and if this theory is to be believed, the ONLY hint at all in any Star Wars media) that the clones were programmed to not kill Dooku.
There's also the hint that he finished up the job with ordering them.
We can go on and on for pages but the fact of the matter is the clones were not what you expected them to be. Dooku never had any idea he would be in danger of being captured or killed by the clones as he was supposed to be coordinating the war on the background like Sidious.
8th Mar 2018
Death Wish (2018)
Corrected entry: No way Kersey leaves the gun shop same day with a full auto AR-15. It would take boatloads of paperwork, waiting, and registration with the federal government. He could have bought a conventional semi-auto AR-15 much more easily.
Correction: There is no such thing as a full auto AR-15 unless someone has changed the firing mechanism in the lower receiver. You can not buy a full auto AR-15.
Kersey didn't even know how to shoot a pistol and had to practice with the throw down gun. The gun shop sold him the AR-15 capable of full auto. He would not know how to convert it.
You don't need to know how to shoot to do a full-auto conversion. There are kits available with instructions online. A bump stock could also be easily added to the firearm to make it functionally full-auto even if it technically is not.
Bumpstocks are a terrible gimmick that make firing and aiming properly very difficult. They are nothing more than a toy.
The gun store couldn't sell him a full auto AR because they don't exist, as the OP stated. There are military versions, like the M4 carbine which can be had as NFA items, but not in Chicago.
8th Jan 2020
Aquaman (2018)
Question: Why didn't they move? Surely they could've hidden in one of the other states mainly a landlocked one like Iowa, Nebraska, or Kentucky, as in not near an ocean.
Answer: Yes I mean as in his father and mother should've moved, not the Atlanteans.
They both obviously love the ocean very much, and it might have been to hard for them to live away from it. Call it a false sense of security if you will.
Answer: If you are talking about the Atlanteans, their entire civilization sunk into the ocean. Instead of leaving it, all that history, culture and technology, they adapted instead. They didn't want to leave their home and be exiled forever. A lot did go and live in other areas of the ocean but by that time humans had taken over on land, and they didn't want to interfere, nor did they need to by that time.
I think the question is asking why Arthur's parents didn't move. Why, knowing that people from Atlantis are hunting you, would you continue to live near the ocean?
8th Jan 2020
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Why is Han so skeptical of the Force? I get that he himself has never witnessed anyone use it, but he would have been alive during the Jedi purge, and surely he knows that Chewbacca fought alongside the Jedi on Kashyyyk. Additionally, is there any reason Obi-Wan wouldn't have demonstrated Force powers to Han on the way to Alderaan other than he didn't feel the need to prove it?
Answer: Han describes force powers as "simple tricks and nonsense." He has never seen any Jedi doing anything particularly super-powered. Even if Chewy did and told Han it is still reasonable for him to be skeptical and to think his friend is exaggerating. Han simply thinks the stories about Jedi are overblown. A good way to think about it would be to examine how ninja are presented in popular culture versus how they were in reality. The stories surrounding ninja are greatly exaggerated to the point of absurdity, applying immense fighting ability and oftentimes magical powers to normal men. The difference is jedi actually had magical abilities while ninja did not.
Answer: To answer the second part of your question, Obi-Wan has Luke demonstrate the Force in front of Han by putting a blinder on and fighting the remote. Believing he has made his point, Obi-Wan comments "You see!", to which Han replies that Luke's success was against a remote, and that fighting a living person was completely different. So even after being shown something that is completely impossible without the use of the force, Han still chooses not to believe.
Well Han also dismissed Luke's success with the remote as luck. If Obi-Wan used the Force to steal Han's blaster right from its holster, would Han just dismiss it as magic? Is there such thing as magical powers in the Star Wars universe independent from the Force?
Oh, I absolutely agree with your point. But I always took this scene to mean that Obi-Wan isn't trying to win an argument with Han or prove anything to him. He's trying to teach Luke about the force. He doesn't really care what Han believes and is dismissive of his comments. Luke believes he felt the force using the remote and that's what is important.
There actually is, or so I believe. The nightsisters, also called the witches of Dathomir, that appear in The Clone Wars-series. They used dark magic.
4th Jan 2020
Die Hard (1988)
Stupidity: Hans keeps a major part of his plan secret from his own team: that the electromagnetic lock will be disabled if the FBI shuts down power to the building. The mercenaries hired as muscle don't need to know the minutiae of the plan, but it seems ludicrous that Theo wasn't told. Theo states on more than one occasion that he can't proceed past a certain point and that he hopes Hans has a plan for the final lock. Evidently, Hans was keeping this information secret simply to amuse himself, which makes little sense considering how much planning went into the heist.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Or because he simply doesn't trust anyone with that kind of knowledge. He neither trusts them or cares about them, it's all him.
So he trusts that Theo would be on board with all the murder and mayhem, open all the other locks, be in a tactical lookout position when the police try to breach, and drive the getaway vehicle. But he doesn't trust Theo enough to tell him the last lock will open when the power goes out?
It's not about trust; Hans needs Theo to do what he is there for and that is all you mention up to the final lock. He has a plan for the final lock and so there's no need to discuss it with the team, since it won't be any of them responsible.
The more people that know the plan the more chances of someone talking. Especially when they are hired mercenaries.
Theo was already on board with taking hostages and committing murder. Him knowing that the power needed to be shut off to open the last lock doesn't appear to be particularly important information you would need to keep from someone to keep them from talking.
If he's the only one that knows the final step to get the money, then at least up until that moment he is absolutely indispensable to the plan and ensures no-one would double-cross him. In any case I'm not sure being more cautious than necessary really qualifies as "stupidity."
24th Nov 2019
Alien 3 (1992)
Question: At the start of the film when the facehugger tries to get into Newt's cryotube, why does it use brute force instead of acid to gain entry?
Answer: It does use acid, but it has acid for blood so it needs to harm itself first to produce the acid.
In the first Alien, didn't the facehugger use acid to get into Kane's helmet? It wasn't bleeding acid.
It actually isn't shown exactly how the acid was used to get into Kane's helmet. The creature jumps on his helmet and Kane falls over with the creature on the outside and next we see, the creature has melted its way into the helmet. So it could be it cut itself, just as the creature does in Alien 3.
27th Dec 2019
Knives Out (2019)
Stupidity: Spoiler. The protagonist is a trained and competent nurse, paired with one of the greatest murder mystery writers. Neither finds strange in the slightest that after jabbing his vein with a dose of drugs 30 times the norm he is absolutely fine, not just conscious but even able to concoct on the spot a convoluted plot, speaking normally and quite at length, no trouble at all. He should be dead "in 10 minutes" sure, but it's not a time bomb. You'd think one would not be so blasé about slitting their own throat and the other would have to notice how amazingly unaffected and lucid the other appears to be minutes later. Not to mention that his plan would have never worked with the toxicology report, which should be routine in a suicide case also to assess the mental state of the person who left no note or anything behind.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is explained that the drug overdose will kill Harlan in 10 minutes based on the dosage. The implication is that Harlan's heart will stop, not that he will become gradually and obviously sick over those 10 minutes. Regardless, based on what they believe will happen, even if they did notice that Harlan wasn't getting sick they wouldn't have the time to test that theory. The fact that neither Marta nor Harlan thought about a potential toxicology report is a pretty major part of the plot, and it is perfectly reasonable given the circumstances. The plot was hatched on the spot within a few minutes and there are several holes in the plan that drive the story throughout the film. Although a brilliant man and a great writer, Harlan simply didn't think of everything.
She explicitly says "You'll feel symptoms in 5" and when he shuts her up putting a hand on her mouth she says "We have 6 minutes."Then his daughter interrupts them and more time is wasted. By the time when he begins his convoluted explanation of the big plan he should have already been disoriented, sweaty and the whole gamut leading to his respiratory failure. And he goes on for minutes after that. It's very true, it moves the plot along, but by what they say themselves (which is from I understand not medically accurate and contradicted also by what happens later in the movie with the second death) they should have realised that time has passed with nothing happening. You could even say it's Rian Johnson's intentional deconstruction of the artificial nature of the whoddunit contrivances! But also, just saying, one of those "Stupid actions and decisions people take in movies, which no-one would ever do in real life."
Even taking that into account, what you are saying is Harlan should have said "Hmm, a few minutes have passed and I haven't felt any symptoms, so I'm not actually poisoned. Carry on then, false alarm." It moves the plot along because Harlan isn't willing to risk Marta getting in trouble for poisoning him and they have less than 10 minutes to act. This would count as a stupidity entry if Harlan didn't care about who took the blame for killing him, but obviously he does. Remember, stupidity entries are not for poor decisions by characters, they are for minor plot holes. This being "an act no-one would ever do in real life" is kind of the entire point of the movie. Nobody believes Harlan would do this because, well nobody cares about their nurse that much. But he does.
The part I was quoting is the description of the category in the metadata on google, or if you prefer the hover text description just above this very page go by "Something just plain stupid. Not as deal-breaking as a plot hole, but something daft, like running upstairs with a killer behind them, instead of out of the front door." I call "slitting your own throat feeling totally fine after you yourself have been calling the minutes with precision earlier", pretty silly, to say the least. Again, this is all stuff the script itself unnecessarily calls attention on. If he didn't mention twice the time before, if she hadn't said that the symptoms happen after 5 but just "your heart is gonna exploded at the 10 minute mark", then, maybe, I would have simply reported the factual error that this is not how it works. It's the script itself that points out (Harlan himself says it twice) the exact minutes, and the symptoms and how they are gradual.
This still ignores the fact that they don't have time to test the theory. They would have to notice the lack of symptoms, and assume somehow that the lack of symptoms after 5 minutes must mean that Harlan isn't actually poisoned, and stop their plan right then and there. The audience knows that Harlan isn't really poisoned, but we don't find that out until later. I doubt very seriously that anyone watching this film for the first time believed, as you suggest, that Harlan obviously wasn't poisoned because he didn't show any symptoms and it was therefore stupid for him to kill himself. It seems to you to be stupid in hindsight, but I honestly don't believe, based on what the characters knew, that Harlan's action was so egregious that it constitutes a mistake in the script.
We definitely had a very different impression watching it the first time. The thought that this old man could be shot a big dose of morphine in vein and calmly think of perfect murder plans for the next minutes was 200% absurd on first view here. I could say that others thought the same but it's just anecdotical and I respect you having a different take. For the rest, it's again just the script itself drawing attention to it. From the mouth of the same character who nonchalantly slits his own throat feeling still fine. It seems egregiously stupid and contradictory.
But he wasn't shot a big dose of morphine. He got his normal meds, they only think he overdosed.
We don't know that yet. We know that, in their words, he was shot 100 mg instead of 3 (does not matter if true or not, we are fed this information and the characters believe it). Again, the whole scene would have worked if they didn't, themselves, add details. Makes the overdose sound huge, and inserting the 6 minutes mark (which means, barely 1 min till the symptoms show up) before the daughter arrives when more than half of the scene has still to be played, weakens it terribly. Some things are maybe just stupid in hindsight, like the fact that all he needed to do was to write in his own penmanship a suicide note saying he killed himself with an injection once Marta left, but the overdose bit felt absurd on first viewing.
30th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Question: How does Rey get Luke's original (Anakin's) lightsaber? Twice, no less. The first time when Maz Kanada says "a story for another time", a time which never came, apparently. Then it's destroyed in TLJ in the fight with Kylo Ren, then she gets it back again...somehow, in this movie.
Answer: In TLJ you see her pick up both halves. It was then repaired between movies, with the prop showing modifications where it was fixed.
Chosen answer: According to StarWars.com: Rey took the broken pieces with her to Crait. The lightsaber's shattered pieces reunited themselves as she continued down the Jedi path.
If you look closely, the lightsaber has been repaired after being broken in Last Jedi. There is a new middle piece joining the two broken pieces together.
At the end of "The Last Jedi", when the remaining Resistance fighters leave Crait, there is a close-up of Rey's hands holding the broken pieces of the saber, meaning that she took them with her.
17th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)
Stupidity: The entire plot revolves around the First Order chasing the ships, waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel. They could have easily destroyed the Resistance's fleet by sending a Star Destroyer or two around to cut them off from the other side and blast them into oblivion.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Maybe. But if the First Order does this the entire plot of the movie as it is is ruined. So, maybe both?
Just because you didn't like the movie doesn't change a character stupidity into a plot hole.
What prevents a character's stupidity from being a plot hole? Is it wrong to want competent villains? If a character is supposed to be intelligent (let's say, a naval commander or military leader) and has the capability to achieve his or her objective with an obvious decision a character of his or her stature should make but does not and it is the only reason the plot of the movie still exist, is it not both a plot hole and character stupidity? Not just Hux, Snoke, Kylo, and every other First Order officer failed to realise this. How? It does not make any sense. At the very least try to explain in the movie how the FO let the Resistance get away because they refused to let Star Destroyer make a few hyperspace jumps and cut the Resistance off.
Hux is an idiot, Snoke is a fraud and Kylo doesn't really strike me as a strategic mastermind.
Hux only really becomes an idiot because of this movie. In TFA, he is an established military officer who does come across as more feared and respected. The change in this movie is then character stupidity and/or a character mistake that creates a big plot hole from the start.
Well the new movie puts a whole new light into that. Changes the whole discussion.
So they retconned to correct this mistake? Still makes it a mistake in my opinion. Especially since it is not just Hux who could have been a better leader. Any FO military officer could have brought it up and executed that idea.
In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off again, travelling at light speed you would travel so far ahead of them you would take days to get back to them. In a quarter of a second at lightspeed you travel much farther than the length of the planet Earth.
To answer the question: a plot hole is something that contradicts something already established in the film that's done to move the plot along or resolve an issue. A stupidity is a minor plot hole, but can also be character acting contradictory to what's been established, usually to keep the plot going. A character mistake is a character making a mistake or error they shouldn't have (usually because the writers don't know the right answer). Characters acting stupid or irrationally or making human errors is not a valid movie mistake.
So by this, it is a plot hole because the Star Destroyers can jump in and out of hyperspace and could make that jump to cut the Resistance off. It is character stupidity because Hux is established as a high ranking military officer in TFA and thus should know basic military strategy along with all of his fellow officers. I think if a character acts stupid which goes against their established personality and traits without a good reason, it is very much a mistake. Hux was not pressured into an irrational decision. In fact, it is the most calming battle to ever take place in Star Wars. There is no reason for him to be this incompetent. He is only this way because Rian wrote him this way, which on your list is a character mistake too. When the general audience is a better military tactician than the FO Commander in the movie, it is a bad sign.
The problem is that we as the audience know the Resistance will find a way out of this situation. General Hux believes he has the Resistance trapped and they have no escape. In his mind, the plan was working perfectly well. There's no reason to alter the plan. It's not like they are under a time crunch and need to destroy the ships as quickly as possible. By moving the cruisers out of range and crawling away, it was clear to Hux that the Resistance had run out of options. Hux doesn't need to do anything differently in his mind, so he doesn't. It only seems stupid to us because we know the heroes will find a way out because heroes always do.
I am sure the First Order is well aware that the Resistance is doing all they can to find an escape, however unlikely it is. However, contrary to the audience, they do not know how they plan on doing so. All the more reason for the First Order to blow the Resistance to bits while they still can. What is the benefit of just waiting for the Resistance to run out of fuel in the first place? Wouldn't it just be better to end them swiftly? Also, it is not just Hux. There are other military officers and you would think there would be a few of them who would want to destroy the Resistance while the opportunity was present. Its decisions like these that make you wonder how the First Order gained so much power in the first place.
It is just Hux. The captain of the Dreadnaught makes it clear that Hux is in general command, as he is irritated that Hux did not scramble fighters as soon as Poe's X-Wing showed up. Overconfidence has been a staple of Star Wars villains from the very beginning, and if it's a movie mistake here then it's also a mistake that Tarkin doesn't evacuate the Death Star; or that Vader doesn't force choke Luke on Bespin instead of trying to trap him in carbonite; or that Jaba doesn't shoot Luke Skywalker instead of taking him to the Sarlaac pit; etc.
Comparing Tarkin's overconfidence to Hux's actions is practically insulting. The Empire believed the Death Star was indestructible until the flaw was discovered during the Rebels' attack run. Even with this flaw, the chances of the Rebels' success was incredibly slim. The Rebels have already failed multiple times and the Empire was mere seconds away from ending the Rebellion for good. The probability of the Empire ending the Rebels once and for all was almost a certainty and it was logical to take the chance. Tarkin may have been overconfident, but he had a right to be. The Vader example is dumb too. The Emperor ordered Luke to be taken to him alive. To do that, they were going to entrap him in carbonite. That was Vader's goal, not to kill him with a Force choke. Jabba is a sadistic showman, as seen when he fed Oola to the Rancor. When Luke is captured, he created a show in which he can enjoy. How Luke died was just as important to him as Luke dying.
Tarkin said he wanted to destroy the Rebellion with one swift stroke. Key word here being swift, not lazily waiting for some gas just to run out. If Tarkin was in charge of the First Order instead of Hux, the Resistance would have easily been destroyed, no questions asked. Having Hux betray what he was supposed to be from TFA by being a passive, ignorant, and incompetent leader causes the FO to be nonthreatening, terrible villains, and defeats any suspense in the plot. It's illogical for the audience to believe that a military commander could be this stupid.
Completely and entirely disagree with your assessment. Tarkin's overconfidence and Hux's overconfidence both come from the same belief: that their enemies have no means of victory. Both men believe they have already won and it is only a matter of time before they win. Tarkin is flat out told that there is a chance that the rebels will destroy them and he chooses not to evacuate. This overconfidence is a staple of every movie in this series because the major theme of an underdog triumphing over the odds demands this. I did not mean that Vader should force choke Luke to death, but once the plan to freeze him fails he certainly could have tried harder to incapacitate Luke. By not doing so he allows Luke to escape. This isn't dumb, it's just overconfident. Jabba choosing to put on a show rather than just shooting his enemies is the very definition of overconfidence, and it's honestly strange that you seem to be arguing that it isn't.
I was arguing against your assessment of Vader and Tarkin and explaining Jabba's view and how it differs from how Tarkin and Hux should go about things. Jabba is an overconfident crimelord and thus has different traits then a military leader so it is unjust to compare him to Tarkin and Hux. Tarkin was given that information mid battle a mere minute away from wiping out of the Rebellion. Here it is believable of him to assess the situation, see the Rebels have already failed multiple attempts, and that the Rebels chance for success was minuscule and waiting was the best option. Hux's ability to end the war is literally right there. Not minutes away, seconds away if he would have just commanded a ship to cut them off. There is no benefit in waiting, whereas Tarkin is operating a Death Star and must wait as it moves differently (slower, less maneuverable) than a Star Destroyer. Even if they have the same belief, Tarkin acts competently and Hux acts unbelievably moronic.
I think that's where I'm having a problem with your statements. I don't believe that Hux acted "unbelievably moronic." His plan was working perfectly fine. Just because he didn't wipe out of the ships as fast as he possibly could doesn't make him a moron, or a bad military leader. Hux had just lost Starkiller Base and his Dreadnaught, so it is perfectly reasonable for him to take a safe approach with destroying the remaining Rebel ships; picking them off one-by-one at no risk to his fleet whatsoever. His plan works absolutely fine and the few Rebels that do survive only do because Luke Skywalker projects his image across space to stall Kylo Ren. "Military leader" doesn't mean "infallable" and it certainly isn't a gap in the film's logic, especially in the Star Wars series, to have a leader make questionable decisions in hindsight.
You just said Hux was an extremely risk adverse military leader, whereas good military leaders must deliberately accept tactical risks. However, there is no risk here. Destroying the Resistance fleet would have been easy since all of their fighters and bombers were already destroyed fighting the Dreadnaught. Regular sight should have been able to see that waiting for the Resistance to think up an escape plan was a bad idea. Especially since the First Order knows the Resistance has a map to Luke Skywalker and his arrival could completely turn the tide of the battle. Logically, the First Order should destroy the Resistance fleet before Luke could arrive. The only explanation, which makes for a bad movie, is that Hux is unlike what he was represented in TFA and is an incompetent leader. From the beginning, he was never meant to be like is TFA self. He did fall for a "your mama" joke to start the movie and let a Dreadnaught die from the slowest bombers in the galaxy.
I did not say that Hux was "extremely risk averse." I said that Hux took a safe approach. Having Hux plan to defeat the Rebels before Luke Skywalker could show up would have also been out of character. The villains in the Star Wars stories consistently believe that not even a powerful Jedi could stop their plans when they have convinced themselves they've already won. Snoke says as much during this very film.
You said Hux likes playing it safe, that means he is a risk adverse military leader, or at least made a risk adverse decision when there didn't need to be one. So it is now out of character for Hux to defeat the Resistance until Luke shows up? At this point, the only reason it makes sense for Hux to act this way is what was revealed in TRoS, which would be a retcon to cover the mistake in this movie. I find your villain statement more of opinion then truth. It may only make sense in this trilogy. Palpatine is the true villain of Star Wars and his big plan to rule the galaxy found it necessary to kill all the powerful Jedi, so he obviously was not convinced he could win with them alive. As Emperor, discovering a potential Jedi in Luke was treated like an actual threat, maybe the only true threat. The Emperor wants Luke dead/capture in ESB. The Emperor tries to turn Luke in RotJ. The Emperor does believe he can turn/defeat Luke, and he would have defeated him if Vader hadn't intervened.
You are putting words in my mouth. I never said that Hux "likes playing it safe." I said that he took a safe approach in this particular situation.
I'm gonna say it here too, the new movie puts it all in a whole new light. So just wait till you see it. (not that it's particularly good though).
We do not know exactly when this character decided to do that. Could have been before or after these events. Most likely it occurred after Snoke died and Kylo took power. So that is just speculation. If this character's decision does occur before the events of this movie, then it is a retcon to cover this mistake, meaning the mistake exists.
Exactly. This movie's plot is very flawed and it lacks logic to the big extent. Hux was much more competent in TFA, so his behavior in TLJ was both stupidity and a plothole.
Then they should have written a better plot. Complaining that rational act ruins the plot is a writing issue with the plot. They shouldn't have written this problem in the first place. You can't hide behind the "but it will ruin the film" excuse when the writers could have written literally anything else.
Suggested correction: In the time it takes to switch the hyperdrive on and off they would have travelled so far in front of the rebels that they would be worse off than before. Even switching the drive in for .25 of a second would carry them around 400,000 kilometers if my memory serves. This is still a plot hole. The first order ships are bigger, therefore they should be faster due to larger/ more engines and the "fuel" issue is wrong because all you have to do is switch off your engine and you will not stop.
Suggested correction: Why would they need to? They easily outgun what remains of the Resistance, and they're patient enough to wait for the ships to run out of fuel. The First Order was overconfident, but they were not wrong about their plan working.
What is the benefit of the First Order waiting? It would be better to take out your enemy swiftly when given the chance. Especially since we are told this is the last of the Resistance. Destroying these few ships would then end the war and give the First Order control of the galaxy.
18th Dec 2019
Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (2019)
Stupidity: The commando mission to save Chewbacca starts gunning down a few Stormtroopers in the hangar. The heroes then go on leaving the troopers lying down on the floor in front of the ship, in plain view. They don't hide them nor ask the droids (who have enough strength and tools to pull them in) to, in fact they tell them to stay put. No wonder they are found out later (after a ridiculously long amount of time).
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Hiding the bodies would have been a waste of time, anyone who came to the hangar would immediately notice that the guards stationed there were missing and there was now a strange ship parked there.
The droids have all the time in the world, and people just passing by are "more immediately" bound to notice corpses in the middle of a hangar rather than possibly maybe question the fact that you don't see guards in that part of the hangar or investigate the ship - which could approach without anyone taking exception by appearance alone. At least remove the bodies directly in front of the damn ship!
Why would they be more likely to notice dead guards than no guards?
Anyone passing by might well thing the patrols were just out of sync, or a shift change. Sure they might investigate further, but they might not bother. Whereas a couple of dead bodies? Immediate red alert. Worth taking 30 seconds to hide them, surely.
Perhaps, but then it's made irrelevant 1 minute later as Finn and Poe run down a hallway blasting about a dozen stormtroopers.
For that matter, 1 SECOND later they kill stormtroopers in the far part of the hangar. They are killing people all over the ship during their mission and it's not like they hide every single one of them, but they leave two bodies *exactly* in front of their ship (and telling the droids to stay put). You can even see later that there is a stormtrooper with his weapon pointed exactly where those two corpses are, with the 'smart' commanding officer asking "whose ship is this?" at the sight of that. Maybe I am spoiled by a trope here, but it's the first time that I see someone in an action movie leaving corpses right in front of their only escape route/vehicle, that's so counterintuitive. (Did they even have an escape plan, actually? I don't like hypotheticals, but gee, if only she did the Jedi mind trick thing to those 2 guards who came over to inspect the ship instead of doing it later. But I digress).
29th Dec 2019
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: During the arena battle, while Mace is retrieving his lightsaber, why doesn't Jango just shoot him there while he's disarmed and steady, instead of trying to steal it?
Answer: Because Mace Windu is a Jedi and if he gets his lightsaber he'll be able to deflect Jango's blaster shots with ease. If Jango is able to grab the lightsaber before Mace can get it, then he stands a much better chance of winning.
But if he shoots him before he got his lightsaber he can't deflect the shot.
Not saying it was either smart or prudent, but that was obviously his thinking. In his mind if he grabs that lightsaber before Windu can get it he's won.
Villains in movies don't have a lot of logic.
9th Dec 2003
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Deliberate mistake: Jules' famous Ezekiel quote is actually an expansion of what is in the Bible. Ezekiel 25-17 actually reads: "And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the Lord, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them." (00:20:10 - 00:22:25)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Any wrong-spelled quotes that been said by any character can't even be remotely considered as a movie mistake, character can basically say anything he wants and mistake in any quotes by will as any living person can do.
This mistake is referring to the beginning of the quote, the "path of the righteous man" part. Those few sentences are nowhere in the bible. Jules begins his quote by stating Ezekiel 25:17, but the only part of what he says that's in that verse is the "great vengeance and furious anger" part. Everything else Jules said was added by Quentin Tarantino, which would make it technically a misquote, and thus a Deliberate Mistake.
13th Dec 2019
Die Hard (1988)
Question: They say the wires for the electromagnetic seal "can't be cut locally" - how is that possible? I mean at some point the electricity for them has to come into the building, surely?
Chosen answer: I took this to mean that cutting the lines themselves wouldn't open the safe. The safe is designed such that the physical locks could be destroyed but the electromagnetic lock wouldn't open unless the power to the entire building was shut off.
But my point is they've got control of the building, including the basement/anywhere else. General power has to enter the building from the street somewhere, and I don't see how they wouldn't be able to just cut through a main power cable and achieve exactly the same result as a switch being flipped by a city engineer.
The city engineer shuts down an entire city grid. I think that has something to do with it. It's not as simple as cutting a power line or flipping a switch.
I get that's the argument, I just don't see how. Because eventually it has to come down to the building being connected to the city grid via...something, and I don't see why the bad guys couldn't just interfere with that "something" themselves. There's either a technical reason or it's a plot hole, but I'm not really bothered about the mistake aspect, it's more just a query my brain can't let go of and I want the answer. :-).
Answer: There's no mention as to where the cables actually enter the building. They could come in via the basement, there could be a separate utility room that can only be accessed from outside or the cables could simply be inside a wall somewhere. They'd probably need to find the building blueprints to find out where the cables come into the building.
10th Dec 2019
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
Question: Why didn't they immediately send Padme to Naboo when they knew she was in danger from the assassins instead of waiting until the next day and sending Anakin and Obi-Wan to watch over her for that one night Coruscant?
Answer: They were going out undercover on civilian transport (like a Greyhound bus). Apparently the next ship wasn't scheduled to leave until the next day.
As a follow up, Padme wanted to stay in Coruscant to participate in the vote. She only left after the second attempt on her life and the Jedi decided to launch an investigation, ordering Anakin to take her to Naboo and keep her safe.
2nd Feb 2017
Alien Resurrection (1997)
Corrected entry: When climbing above the nesting grounds, one of the guys gets a dead, very heavy alien on his shoe. To save the crippled guys life and keep him climbing, he unhooks from the crippled guy and falls to his death. He didn't have to die, though. He could have just pushed it off with his other foot.
Correction: Christie was very badly injured from the acid that hit him. He was barely conscious and simply couldn't move his foot to get rid of the alien. It wasn't a certainty it would work either, Christie simply thought of the fastest and surest way for Vriess to be saved.
I always got the impression Christie was paralyzed from the waist down after he gets hit with the acid. It's a fitting way for him to die, because he saves Vriess who is also paralyzed in the same way.
How would he get paralyzed from the acid? It hit his face.
Went into his brain. I can't see him being too tired to move his leg but not too tired to un-snap his harness. Either way, it's a very poorly explained scene. Not saying I'm right and you're wrong, it's just the way I always read the scene when I watched the movie.
Right, right. I get where you are coming from. But let's be realistic, if the acid had gone in his brain he'd be dead. He just didn't have the strength left, not tired, just in and out of conscious. And again, it would have taken too long to try and get the alien off.
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.
Answer: It's also said genetics plays a part here. You can look like an ancestor more than a parent. I myself look nothing like either of mine nor do any of my 3 siblings: older brother, older sister, younger sister.
Rob245