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)
BaconIsMyBFF
9th Dec 2003
Pulp Fiction (1994)
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.
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.
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.
He won't necessarily be dead. Brain injuries are not all fatal, but can result in loss of different body functions.
19th Mar 2003
Die Hard (1988)
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.
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."
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.
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.