Corrected entry: Towards the beginning of the movie, Bruce Willis notifies the cop outside that there are 12 terrorists. However, if you tally the numbers as he takes out each one, you wind up with 13.
BaconIsMyBFF
19th Mar 2003
Die Hard (1988)
Correction: John only sees twelve of the terrorists. The 13th is the Computer Expert, Theo.
As a point of fact, John sees Theo in the scene where Takagi is killed. Karl and Theo are both in the room during that scene.
24th Nov 2019
Star Wars (1977)
Question: Has there ever been any sort of canonical discussion about the morality of droid treatment in any Star Wars titles? They're intelligent/sentient, are treated well by most people, even like friends/pets by some. And yet they also seem to casually get their minds wiped, or if they're destroyed many people shrug rather than mourn. Tools to some, valued comrades to others, it's just a bit all over the place. Idle thought really.
Answer: Lucas has gone on record as to the treatment of droids in Star Wars being a thought-provoking allegory for the way people treat minorities. I've never heard him specifically talk about how it's almost never commented-upon in-universe, but intentionally or not, I'm of the opinion that it's more compelling this way. Why doesn't anybody do anything about the way droids are treated? Well, go around asking people why they don't do anything about the way other people are treated and you'll quickly find out.
Answer: Not in the films, but several of the books removed from canon by Disney mentioned a "droids' rights movement" that decried memory wipes and other dismissals of sentience. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Droid_rights_ (movement).
Solo, which is canon, features a subplot about droid's rights. So not everything has been scrubbed regarding this topic.
Chosen answer: Nobody in the Star Wars universe, except on rare occasions, has shown sympathy towards a droid or any AI. Even though these robots learn, they don't really evolve beyond their programming so they aren't considered "alive" (unlike in other fiction like Wall-E), not even by the most sentimental of people. Organic beings develop attachments to droids, but mostly towards their usefulness, not because they like their personality, not even Luke Skywalker towards R2 or Poe towards BB-8. If they are destroyed, too bad. Memory wiping doesn't remove the droid's original programming either, and their way of talking and manners stay.
In Episode 2, Obi-Wan makes the offhanded comment "Well, if droids could think there'd be none of us here", implying that droids do not actually possess artificial intelligence. R2-D2 seems to be a particularly unusual droid in that he is uncommonly resilient and steadfast, which makes his allies quite fond of him. Poe and BB-8 appear to have a bond that goes beyond simply being attached to the droid's usefulness, but like you say that appears to be a unique case.
Just because he said that doesn't mean they didn't have AI. They think for themselves, so they have AI. Just not as advanced as in other fiction.
The point is raised again later in the film when the cloners state that unlike droids, clones can think for themselves.
1st Oct 2019
The Boy Next Door (2015)
Stupidity: Noah loves the classics, he shows passion and interest in them, it's part of what wins over professor Jennifer Lopez. Witness this risible exchange, about Achilles; "He killed this guy, Hector. But instead of hiding out like a pussy, he..." "Dragged his dead body around for everybody to see." "Yes." The sheer dumbness of this exchange, especially the first statement, hurts the brain; why would a warrior 'hide out like a pussy' for killing an enemy during war?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Achilles killed Hector in an act of revenge, not an act of war. Hector was a beloved warrior and treating his corpse with disrespect could have insulted the Trojans. Knowing this, Achilles dragged Hector's body around the city in an act of boldness. So yes, instead of "hiding out" after killing his enemy, Achilles acted like a "badass", taunting the Trojans with his victory over their champion, disregarding any threat of reprisal. There's nothing stupid about this exchange.
"Dude, there's this book about a Greek war with gods and heroes and sh*t: you know what, the main character kills his enemy in battle and doesn't hide out after! Like it's a war or something." What a stellar and perfectly not stupid pitch about the book! Makes totally sense and it obviously woos the college professor too! Mind you, I don't want to come across as sarcastic and I enjoy reading your comment, but the "not an act of war" objection is irrelevant when all the action happens in the battlefield, regardless of character motivations. Point is, the statement does not follow logic when it comes to pitching an epic fantasy book to a young adult, and on top of that, this fundamentally flawed series of statements is even painted as something totally impressing a college professor.Surely my flawed perspective of a snob living amongst snobs in a country where the study of classics is more widespread than the US, but blurting out something like that would get you a giggle at best.
I think you're putting too much weight on the "not hiding out" part of Noah's statement and not enough weight on the defiance of Achilles, which is what Noah was saying he was impressed with. For this to be a stupid statement, it would have to be incorrect. It isn't incorrect. Noah describes exactly what happened. Sure, he uses a colloquial tone but all he's really saying is "Achilles kills Hector in a duel and rather than flee the battlefield afterwards, he parades Hector's corpse around the city to intimidate his enemies." You seem to be hung up on the "fleeing the battlefield" part, as if that is a reading of Achilles actions that is so off base it rises to the level of a mistake in the movie. I don't believe that to be the case. Also, this college professor is impressed by the fact a youth would read Homer on his own at all, and the fact that he's incredibly charming and handsome certainly doesn't hurt.
I put weight on it because it sticks out: the line itself is designed to get attention using that colorful expression. Even as you paraphrased it with "Achilles kills Hector in a duel and rather than flee the battlefield afterwards" etc, the problem is not the tone: since when it's the go-to move in the genre, killing someone in a duel and then fleeing? I can't see why this would be a logical thing to say, so strongly even, to pitch the book to his friend! Like pitching a restaurant prefacing unironically that they do not spit in your food. His reading is not technically incorrect, or I would have put it in the 'character mistake' category, but mentioning what did (not) happen is daft and contrived. And yes, it is a dialogue that is supposed to reinforce that 'incredibly charming' quality you mention but it is written in such a childish way that undermines it, also considering that he told her he already studied Homer in his previous school and he is not exactly a kid.
22nd Sep 2019
It Chapter Two (2019)
Factual error: There's a flashback to 1989 in an arcade and we see Mortal Kombat and Mortal Kombat II there. The original wasn't released until 1992, and the sequel in 1993.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Subtract 27 from 2019 and you get 1992. They were 12-13 in 92 so it is plausible that those games could have been in the arcade while they were still kids.
It's set in 1989, not 1992.
The "present day" scenes in this film actually take place in 2016, 27 years after the first film is set which would be 1989. The mistake is valid.
Some of the flashbacks seem to be set after the first movie.
That flashback definitely was not supposed to be after the first movie, it featured Henry Bowers.
And Pennywise would have been asleep in 1992~1993 so that whole scene after the arcade makes no sense.
23rd Jan 2016
The Karate Kid (2010)
Question: Why is Master Li evil at heart and why does he hold a grudge against Mr. Han? Also why isn't he on speaking terms such as the peace offering by Mr. Han?
Answer: Master Li is based on John Kreese from the original Karate Kid film, and much like Kreese the reasons for his behavior are never fully explained. It is only vaguely mentioned in The Karate Kid Part 3 that Kreese and Terry Silver's martial arts instructor taught them their philosophy on fighting: strike first, strike hard, no mercy. It is reasonable to assume that Master Li learned his behavior from whoever taught him Kung Fu. Master Li holds a grudge against Mr. Han because Mr. Han "attacked" his students. He doesn't accept Mr. Han's peace offering because he views this as a sign of weakness, which he despises.
The grudge is based on Sato and Chozen Toguchi from Part II (1986).
In what way? Sato had a very personal, openly stated reason for his grudge against Miyagi. There is no such indication that Mr. Han and Master Li had ever so much as heard of one another.
5th Oct 2018
Cobra Kai (2018)
Question: How come Sam and Aisha stopped being friends just cause Sam was hanging out with Yasmine?
Answer: Yasime was being mean to her.
But Sam wasn't. It was even obvious that Sam didn't like it.
Sam and Aisha were long-time friends and Sam wasn't standing up for Aisha at all. She continued being friends with Yasmine even though she was being cruel to Aisha. Being uncomfortable at Yasmine's insults is not going far enough to stand up for Aisha.
But Sam also didn't come to her defense either. So that's a good reason for Aisha to not like her.
Answer: Sam picked her prettier and more popular friends over Aisha. They still got along until Yasmine publicly humiliated Aisha.
20th Sep 2019
War of the Worlds (2005)
Question: I've been looking all over for this answer and can't find it. I know this has been asked, but it has not been properly answered to what I can find. At the end of "War of the Worlds", Tom Cruise saw the birds and realised the shields were down. How did the shields deactivate? I understand that the aliens got sick and died from bacteria, but there must have been something else. Even if there were designated aliens to control each tripod's forcefield, there is no way that every "Shield duty" alien died before the other members of their crew, leaving their tripod mobile and vulnerable... Were they getting low on resources because they had eradicated too many humans too quickly? Did they decide that since the majority of people died, that they could focus on using more of their "fuel" towards mobility and capturing instead of combat?
Answer: I believe its supposed to be the tripods work on the alien's biology, so its powered by the presence of a Martian inside. So if the martian is sick, the tripod is sick.
That's always what I believed. This is further evidenced by the fact the tripods themselves have actually been on earth for millions of years, but they get "sick" when the Martians do. It has to be tied to the Martian's own health for that to make any sense.
Answer: Bear in mind if memory serves we only see that one tripod with no shields - other than that we're just told another one "behaved erratically" then went down. So there's no evidence that all the shields on all the tripods went down by default. Could well just be that with the one we see the alien inside was seriously ill, flailing about and deactivated the shields by mistake not long before becoming completely incapacitated.
26th Apr 2018
Heat (1995)
Question: In the scene right before the big bank heist, a detective comes into the situation room informing the team that a CI Hugh Benny had a tip about Neil McCauley looking at Far East National Bank. How the heck did Waingro (working for Benny and VanZandt) even know about this score? McCauley hadn't even discussed it with Kelso when Waingro took down the armored car.
Answer: Waingro helped Van Zandt track down Trejo. Waingro then tortured Trejo and threatened his family if he didn't give up McCauley. With his back to the wall, Trejo gave Waingro and Hugh Benny the details of the bank heist, but Waingro killed Trejo's family anyway and beat Trejo almost to death. Benny then gives the tip to the police on Van Zandt's order.
I wonder how Trejo was tracked, I don't remember his name being revealed during Waingro's time with the crew, or any other information.
Well, we never see the crew prior to their first heist. Trejo could have given Waingro his name during the planning of that heist.
Waingro met this crew only once. How would he know who Trejo is or where he lives? Right before the heist, Trejo is asked to mislead police away from the heist.
2nd Sep 2019
Hobbs & Shaw (2019)
Other mistake: Deckard and Hattie were children at the same time, with Deckard appearing to be no more than 3 years older than Hattie. Although Jason Statham is presumably playing a character younger than he actually is, he is still noticeably much older than his on-screen sister. Jason Statham is in fact 21 years older than Vanessa Kirby.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: And people can age faster than others depending on the stress they've been under.
Even taking things like stress and hard living into account, Jason Statham is still much older looking than the character he is supposed to be playing. Or are you saying that he's under so much stress that, while he is in otherwise outstanding shape, his face is that of a man in his late 40's to early 50's? He looks at the very least 10 years older than the character is aparently supposed to be.
27th Aug 2001
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: In the part of the film where Ripley and Gorman are inside the APC, and Ripley is trying to get the marines to get out of the bowls of the atmosphere processor before anymore get killed, she has the headset on, then in the next shot of her she doesn't, then she does, and then it gets ripped off by Gorman.
Correction: She never actually has the headset 'on' per se. She holds the ear pieces up to her one ear and speaks into the microphone. When Gorman appears to rip it off, you can see that it comes out of her one hand that she was holding it in.
That's completely false, there is a very clear moment where Ripley has the earpiece completely on her head. This mistake is correct, it is indeed a continuity error.
22nd Jun 2005
Aliens (1986)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Newt and Ripley are in the room with the face huggers, Ripley tries to escape by banging a chair against the glass window full force. However, it merely bounces off. But, when one of the marines dives at the window, it smashes. How is this possible?
19th Aug 2019
Casino Royale (2006)
Question: If Vesper was a traitor from the start, why did she save Bond in the car? Wouldn't it be easier to let him die and let Le Chiffre win the game to save her husband?
Answer: Vesper had fallen for Bond and didn't want him to die. Later on she makes a deal with Mr. White to spare Bond's life when he comes for Le Chifre.
So she worked for Le Chiffre giving the location of the chip and the tic and then to Mr. White to save Bond's life?
She never actually worked for Le Chifre, per se. She worked for Quantum (the organization Mr. White worked for). It's just that Quantum wanted Vesper to help Le Chifre get the money because he was also working for them.
13th Jul 2019
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)
Stupidity: Immediately after Unkar Plutt makes Rey a generous offer for BB-8 and she refuses, he tells someone over his communicator to follow her and bring back the droid. He should have at least waited until she was out of earshot before he said that, especially if he was trying to be covert about it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: But he was out of earshot of her.
I posted this immediately after watching the scene in question, and it looked as though Plutt spoke into his communicator right after Rey turned around and went on her way; certainly too soon for her to have gotten more than a few steps away. Also, he spoke at a normal, conversational volume rather than anything that sounded like a whisper or "sotto voce", so unless he was relying on the ambient noise of other nearby activity, I still believe this "stupidity" is valid.
That depends on how sneaky you think Plutt is. Rey walks away in quick paces, so she is out of earshot. Also I don't think it bothers him that much if she heard, she is just a scavenger, what can she do about it?
Rey was definitely out of earshot. Rey walks completely out of the shot, which appears to be about 10 feet away. Unkar Plutt then angrily swipes the portions off the counter and picks up his communicator. At the pace Rey was walking she would have been a considerable distance away from him when he spoke. In addition, Unkar Plutt lowered his voice when he spoke because he was being sneaky. She might have been able to hear him speak, but it is totally reasonable that she wouldn't be close enough to make out exactly what he was saying.
30th Jul 2019
Game of Thrones (2011)
Question: Why does everyone argue over the best way to remove Cersei from power with minimal civilian casualties when they could have just sent Arya to assassinate Cersei? Given her training with the Faceless Men, she could easily infiltrate the Red Keep and get the job done. On top of that, Arya wants to kill Cersei.
Answer: Daenerys and her allies don't just want to kill Cersei, they want to claim King's Landing and free her people from Cersei's grip. The problem is the people of Essos viewed Daenerys as a liberator but the people of Westeros view her as an outsider and usurper. They would never follow Daenerys if she had Cersei assassinated. That is Daenerys' dilemma, she certainly has the ability to wipe Cersei out and obliterate her armies but doing so would make her a tyrant. Which as it turns out is exactly what happens.
But no-one has to know that Cersei was assassinated. Arya has the ability to impersonate anyone she kills, so she could pretend to be Cersei afterwards and profess to the citizens of King's Landing that she has yielded the throne to Danaerys and that she is going into exile.
That plan would be incredibly suspicious. Knowing what they know of Cersei it is highly unlikely the people of King's Landing would believe that she would accept defeat so easily and then voluntarily exile herself, never to be heard from again. In order for that to work, all of Cersei's advisers and closest allies would have to be similarly eliminated, or they would have to be on board with the exile plan. If they are all killed it sort of makes it obvious that something is amiss. There's no way they would be fooled by Cersei suddenly doing a 180 and completely changing her personality by accepting defeat without a fight. If any part of this plan goes wrong then Daenerys would look worse than just an assassin, she would also be deceitful to the people she hopes will willingly accept her rule.
8th Jul 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stupidity: Beck wants to kill Peter's friends because they know his secret. Instead of using Edith to attack them directly with a drone strike, or using his illusion technology to lead them into the path of a train like he did with Spider-Man, he instead has a henchman drive them onto a bridge and leave them in the path of his next Elemental attack. Because absolutely nothing is forcing them to stay on the bridge, they all casually walk off the bus and out of immediate danger. It is unfathomable that a man as intelligent and resourceful as Beck would take such an idiotic approach, especially considering all he had at his disposal and how desperate he was.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He wanted it to seem like they were killed in the Elemental attack because it was cleaner. If they were killed by a drone it would be much more suspicious than being killed in the disaster. Once the plan goes wrong, he does simply send an Edith drone after them. If it wasn't for Spider-Man's timing, he would have been successful as well.
But that is the major problem, and why I think it was an egregious mistake in the movie. The plan "goes wrong" because it was idiotic. So idiotic that it is unrealistic that Beck, a highly intelligent person, would have made such a glaring oversight. Leaving the kids on the bridge but not trapping them at all allowed them to make an easy escape.
I think the point is that Beck thinks he is the smartest person in the room and that this plan is going to work. Should he take into account MJ and co's free will, yes, but he is so maniacal (and not thinking rationally) that it does not cross his mind. This is proven by the fact that as his plan is failing around him that he still wants his suit pressed and ready to meet the Queen because it will work out in the end in his mind. Also, to your point, having them walk in front of a train or walk off the bridge, would not make him a hero. He needed real casualties and Peter's friends were the place to start. Finally, in the sequence showing Beck and his team preparing for the attack, he was focused on the theatrics of the attack and, again, thought the size of it alone would work (he wanted it bigger, scarier, more forceful).
Suggested correction: Fury is well aware of the drone system (he berates Peter for misusing it earlier). If Beck simply utilised EDITH to kill the students, it would give away that Beck was using the drones for his own gain. Once Fury was dead, he could have used EDITH had the original plan failed, but he certainly couldn't do it until after Fury (and potentially other SHIELD agents) had been taken out. He was going to attack London no matter what, so he took the opportunity to take out Ned, MJ and Betty at the same time.
This doesn't stop him from using a targeted drone strike to kill the kids, he was planning on using it to kill Fury anyway. The fact that he fails in his strike against Fury is irrelevant to the fact that he needed those kids dead and decided to take a round-about way of accomplishing this goal. Again, he doesn't have to use a drone strike, he is perfectly capable of using the illusion technology to force the bus off a cliff or into some other immediate danger. Having a henchman drive the bus to a bridge and hope the kids are dumb enough not to escape danger when literally nothing is forcing them to just stand there and be killed is ridiculously idiotic.
Suggested correction: Characters, even intelligent ones, are allowed to make bad tactical decisions. Real-life history is replete with examples. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't make it a plot hole.
True - this was originally submitted as "stupidity", which is slightly different, but this seemed like such a massive oversight that it qualified as a plot hole.
Suggested correction: Beck's intentions were to make it look like the kids were killed in the attack by the monster. Had he just killed them with a drone out right, it would have obviously looked like murder and foul play bringing in more investigations and potential problems for him.
But again, he doesn't need to use a drone strike he can use the illusion technology to trick them into an accident. Even what he chooses to do (just leaving them on the bridge) would have also been fine had he trapped them there at all. Just leaving them there without trapping them is so stupid it is unbelievable. It's like leaving someone on train tracks but not tying them up.
Suggested correction: He was an insane person and wasn't thinking fully rationally.
20th Jun 2019
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Stupidity: The eco-terrorists leave the Orca completely unattended allowing Madison to take it without anyone realizing until she is long gone. In addition, they don't post any guards at the exit of the bunker and Madison simply walks away without anyone noticing her at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They leave the Orca in their empty command room within a bunker filled with loyal men. There is no way anyone could have broken in and stolen it. Madison had the advantage of already being in the bunker and even then had to navigate through the air ducts in order to steal the Orca and escape. They wouldn't have armed men visible immediately outside because they didn't want anyone to notice that they were there.
Either one of these issues by themselves wouldn't be particularly stupid but the combination of them both would indeed allow someone to just walk in and take the Orca. You don't need to post a visible guard at the exit, but nobody is watching the exit at all.
19th Jun 2019
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Question: When Mola Ram is smiling, what is he looking at? Is he looking at the Maharajah or is he looking up at Willie, Indy and Short Round? (01:01:45)
Answer: It doesn't look as if Mola Ram is smiling at the trio, because they're standing to Mola Ram's upper right. The Little Maharaja is seated in front of the Thuggee high priest, but I don't think he's specifically looking downward, directly at the boy either. To me, it seems as if Mola Ram is smiling because while he's confident in his control of the Little Maharaja, it's the fact that he knows another human sacrifice is being brought out for the Kali sacrificial dark ritual.
The question gives the exact second.
Great, but I don't currently have a DVD player or have a copy or access to every movie someone asks a question about. If someone is asking a question, they shouldn't expect anyone to actually take the time to set up and watch the film in order to answer a question for them. Just give a brief description of the scene.
That's what the time stamp feature is used for. The question is asking what exactly Mola Ram is looking at in a specific second of time in the movie. Explaining the scene wouldn't help anyone answer the question. To answer, you will have to look at the movie and pay specific attention to that time stamp. If you can't do that then you can't answer the question and should just ignore.
I get what you're saying, but I've been able to answer many questions without having to re-watch a movie because the question contained enough specific information so that I knew which scene they were referring to. Based on the information given in the question, I can check movie clips on YouTube or get the answer by reading online movie synopsis. Every little bit of info helps.
Tough luck I guess?
14th Jun 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why did time not end when Thanos destroyed the stones, and what happens in now there aren't any? The Ancient One stated that the stones control the flow of time, and removing even one of these opens up the world to unimaginable horror. Well why did nothing happen after Thanos destroyed them all? And now that our timeline has no stones, how would Dr. Strange be able to stop Dormammu from coming back?
Answer: The way I understood it, removing the stones from one timeline into another timeline is what The Ancient One was talking about. The "new branched reality" is what would be overrun by the forces of darkness. But, even if she meant this reality, the reality where Thanos destroyed the stones, The Ancient One said it was their chief weapon, not their only weapon. Bruce then tells her Doctor Strange gave the time stone to Thanos and The Ancient One says maybe she made a mistake. However, since Thanos eliminates half the population of the universe, including the forces of darkness, whatever forces she was talking about may not have been around to try and attack Earth. Or in the 5 years that we don't see, there was an attempt and other weapons were sufficient.
Answer: In the comics the stones will be replaced by something else equally powerful to compensate for their loss. I suppose the same applies to the MCU. These powers need to have a physical presence in the universe, in one way or another.
The only problem is the films never insinuate this at all. The Ancient One flat out states that not having the stones would be bad for the universe, and yet Thanos destroys the stones with absolutely no adverse affects to the universe whatsoever. This movie played very fast and loose with the rules they established regarding the stones and time travel and I feel like things like this were massive flaws.
The universe is a pretty big place, though. There could very well be bad things in another part of the universe that have yet to affect our galaxy. Additionally, the forces of darkness that could potentially threaten the universe may be curbed by a cosmic entity such as the Living Tribunal, whose existence in the MCU was acknowledged in "Doctor Strange" and could very well appear in "The Eternals" or "Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3."
I just believe the ancient one didn't even know. The ancient one isn't always correct, as Bruce proved. And the bad thing was taking the stones away from their timeline, creating timelines where they are not supposed to be, it says nothing about destroying them.
That to me is still bad writing. You have a character whose entire purpose in the movie is to give exposition, and the exposition she gives is apparently incorrect. That's all well and good but that still needs to be addressed at some point. Some character should have brought up the fact that the stones were destroyed (and incidentally, remain destroyed in the main timeline) and the Ancient One should have addressed that fact. Otherwise, like the original question points out, it leaves a bit of a gap in the film's logic.
Answer: I believe the filmmakers have said that the energy of the stones was dissipated into the universe when their crystal vessels were destroyed. So that while they didn't have a physical form anymore, their essence remained and continued to regulate the flow of existence of the Universe. Presumably the energy can't then be reconstituted into the stones without some sort of profoundly intricate magic/science, the kind of power only possessed by gods and/or ancient elemental beings. Also, the Ancient One says that Hulk taking the time stone would be good for his timeline, but would leave hers without their weapon, which I presume means they wouldn't have the time stone to help the Sanctum's usual efforts in holding dark magic at bay. The actual effect of removing the essence of a stone from its timeline is still open to speculation.
If the ancient one was only talking about the time stone then Cap wouldn't have to bother bringing all stones back. No, she was talking about all infinity gems. Remove a stone and that universe is doomed.
Answer: The sorcerers may have other ways to stop Dormmamu from returning (even if those ways are currently unbeknownst to them). This could be addressed in the sequel. Additionally, since Dormmamu would have to know that the Time Stone was destroyed in the first place, he may well just stay away rather than falsely believing that he can be trapped in a time loop again.
Answer: She said the world not the universe. She said "without our chief weapon against the forces of darkness our world will be overrun." Theory: since Thanos used the stones to destroy the stones and Hulk heard what the Ancient One said, he could have used the stones to bring back their stones along with everyone else. He couldn't have know who all died in the universe, he could have just undid everything from 5 years ago.
5th May 2003
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: In the German version the Americans are translated, so they speak German... but the Germans also speak German, yet they don't understand each other.
Correction: This is not a mistake, but an extremely common technique used to make viewing the film easier for speakers of a particular language and avoid the need for extensive subtitles. German viewers are expected to take it as a given that the American characters are actually speaking English to one another and that Upham is the only character that can actually speak and understand fluent German.
Makes me wonder how they explain "fubar" though.
I'm always curious how slang terms that are that specific are translated into other languages. Take it to the forums and see if anyone who speaks German can watch that version. I'd be curious to see the answer myself.
2nd Mar 2018
Darkman (1990)
Plot hole: Whatever happened to the one legged henchman? He was one of the villain's lead goons in the first half of the film, but he simply disappears after the scene in Chinatown. The previous correction that "Peyton didn't have time to track him down" is complete nonsense. He literally vanishes from the film. (Due to a deleted scene, but that's no excuse either way.) There's absolutely no reason he still wouldn't be in Durant's gang and in the remainder of the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You may not agree with the filmmaker's choice, but that doesn't make it a plot hole. It's an unresolved character thread, nothing more.
It's not the filmmakers' choice, though. He was meant to be in more of the movie, but his death scene got cut by the studio to shorten the runtime. So yes, it is a plot-hole, given he was one of the main goons and simply vanishes.
This still isn't a plot hole. In the reality of the film, that character does not partake in any of the gang's activities after the last time he's seen. His presence is not integral to the plot and the story still works without his arc being resolved, so this isn't a plot hole by definition. A plot hole is a gap in the film's logic that cannot be explained, and a side character not having their story resolved on screen does not fall under that definition.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.
Correction: When does he say 12? He says "unknown number of terrorists...at least 6." Later he says " They're down to nine now, counting the skydiver you meet."
Bishop73