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?
BaconIsMyBFF
18th Feb 2020
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)
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).
3rd Dec 2002
On Deadly Ground (1994)
Corrected entry: Towards the end of the movie we see Steven Seagal telling a room full of reporters and Native Americans that we must not pollute our planet by using oil. That we must find alternatives to crude oil and not harm or further damage our atmosphere. During the course of the movie Steven blows up a helicopter, explodes a satchel bomb on pristine terrain, and lastly blows up an entire oil refinery that rains havoc on the environment by polluting the water, air and soil with crude oil and dead bodies he is voicing to protect.
Correction: A character being potentially hypocritical isn't a plot hole. Taft believed all his actions were for the greater good and that shutting down the refinery by any means was a necessary act. Telling people after the fact that they need to care more about the environment isn't a movie mistake at all, it's just the character's opinion.
23rd Oct 2003
The Hunted (2003)
Plot hole: Near the start of the film Tommy Lee Jones tracks a wounded wolf through the woods and removes a snare from its leg. The problem with this is there is no way he could have just walked up to a wild animal start touching it without it attacking. Plus this is a wounded animal which as anyone who deals with animals can tell you makes them twice as dangerous.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: There are numerous real-world stories of people interacting with wounded wild animals without being attacked, so it's not a mistake for the movie to portray that happening here. Even if it were impossible, it would not by definition be a plot hole but a "factual error."
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?).
20th Jan 2020
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Corrected entry: It seems ridiculous that Raven acts selfish saying Charles never sacrificed to save anyone. Clearly, and I speak for others not just myself, she was there to see him get crippled saving both the whole team as well as the USA and USSR naval vessels in X-Men: First Class.
Correction: That's not a movie mistake, it's the character's opinion. It's insensitive, but her point was that they have friends that have died for the mutant cause. She is annoyed that Charles continually will send his team out on dangerous missions while keeping himself out of harms way. Her opinion might harsh but she certainly has a point.
17th Jan 2020
Goodfellas (1990)
Continuity mistake: When Tommy kills Stacks he shoots him once in the back of the dome, then cracks Carbone's castanets about the coffee. Then it cuts to a slo-mo reprise of the whacking with a Henry voice over and Tommy shoots 6 times.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: After Tommy shoots Stacks in the back of the head, you see Carbone come into the room with the coffee pot, a shocked expression on his face. While the camera is focused on Carbone you can hear Tommy continue to shoot Stacks several times off-screen.
Also, the slo-mo of Tommy shooting Stacks the blood splatter is already on the wall before he shoots him.
7th Aug 2014
Coming to America (1988)
Corrected entry: In the scene when Lisa and Akim are walking up to Akim's door (when Semi is sitting in the hot tub after fixing up their room), they are carrying groceries for Akim to cook Lisa dinner, however when Akim walks into the room (and every shot from inside the room) there is no kitchen for him to cook.
Correction: It is not uncommon for cheap buildings such as this to have a communal kitchen rather than a kitchen in every apartment. The landlord states that there is only one bathroom on that floor so they have to share, and this is also apparently true for the kitchen. It is perfectly reasonable for Akeem and Lisa to go into the apartment to put their coats down, sort the groceries, and then go to the kitchen to actually prepare the food. It is also not unreasonable for there to be no kitchen at all and tenants are forced to use a "hot plate" to cook their meals.
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.
7th Jan 2020
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Corrected entry: Why don't the pilots of the Shanghai cargo plane just shoot Indy and co while they are sleeping and push their bodies out over the mountains, rather than skydiving out themselves and leaving the plane to crash? For a start they are risking their own safety by parachuting out over the mountains. The weather could have been bad, which would have ruined that plan. Secondly they're wrecking a valuable asset unnecessarily. Thirdly, they don't know that Indy can't fly the plane - he could have pilot training and might have known how to safely ditch it. (00:17:00)
Correction: The pilots aren't shown to have guns, or knives, or any other weapons. Also, they know Indy can't fly the plane because they dumped the fuel before they left.
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."
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
6th Jun 2019
The Girl with All the Gifts (2016)
Stupidity: Towards the end, one of the soldiers (Kieran) gets trapped in the store with a group of child hungries - he was injured in an ambush, but is still lucid/human. He threatens them with a grenade, even though he knows that throughout the story they are mindless and hardly capable of reason. Fair enough as a bad character mistake, but then to allow the hungries to close in on him and not detonate the grenade is inexcusable. Soldiers are trained to fight and, to a degree, accept even death, to obtain an objective or protect the others in their "unit." Dying anyway, he should have blown up the hungries to at least whittle down their numbers.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A soldier not having the nerve to kill himself is hardly "stupid." Suicide goes against the human desire for self-preservation. Even when faced with assured death it would still be difficult for someone to actually kill themselves and it can't be considered a mistake if someone fails to work up the nerve to do so.
Perhaps so, but soldiers accept that, to a level, their lives are expendable to serve the mission, greater good, etc. Some even seek out a honorable demise. Having many servicemen in my family, this is something repeated frequently. I accept your position as valid! He chose not to use the grenade when faced with his being eaten, and it's tragic. Solely in the context of the movie, it just seemed odd to me then-an opinion.
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.
20th Mar 2018
Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987)
Corrected entry: They beam up with the injured Romulan to the transporter room and Beverly says "let's get him to sickbay." They could have just beamed directly to sickbay.
Correction: Within the Star Trek universe, site-to-site transport carries higher risk than using a transporter pad. It is supposed to be used only in extreme emergencies. It is up to the doctor to decide whether or not someone needs to be transported directly to sick-bay, and in this particular situation she deemed it unnecessary. Why sick-bay doesn't have it's own dedicated transporter pad is a discussion for another day.
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.