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?
BaconIsMyBFF
1st Oct 2019
The Boy Next Door (2015)
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.
8th Oct 2019
The Fugitive (1993)
Other mistake: After the train crash the news crews and sheriff are interviewing the surviving corrections officer. He boasts how heroic he was to rescue his partner from the wreckage, claiming that he was his partner and he would do the same for him. The only problem is that they are surprised when they find that same surviving corrections officer several scenes later and rush him to the hospital. Why would they be surprised to find an officer they already knew about?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The first corrections officer had been exposed as a liar and made up the story that Kimble and Copeland were dead. Nobody believed he heroically saved his partner. Everyone assumed since the partner hadn't been found right away that he died in the wreck. It never occurred to anyone that Kimble would put his own life on the line to save a guard, so actually finding the guard alive was a surprise.
There is nothing formally wrong with the order of events here. The assumption is that the second officer's whereabouts are known at the time of the senior officer's story - but that is actually only an assumption. Finding the second officer would of course not be important to the main story in any way, and thus this sub-story was not explained in the movie. To word it an alternative better way, why would the senior officer make up this story of saving the second officer, if the officer had not been located yet?
The second officer's whereabouts are most certainly not known when the first officer is interviewed. The first officer is interviewed the night of the crash and the second officer is found the next morning.
24th Sep 2019
A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Stupidity: When the parents knew Freddy was doing the killing then why didn't they watch him like a neighborhood watch so they could catch him trying it again, and thus avoid the legal technicality which threw out of the first case? It seems idiotic they broke the law to punish this lawbreaker.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The parents believed Freddy would not face justice for his crimes. They were unwilling to allow him the opportunity to kill another child, and believing the justice system had failed them they took the law into their own hands. They completely got away with their vigilante justice. The only bad thing that happened was Freddy was brought back as a vengeful demon with superpowers. There is no way the parents could have known this would happen.
It is still a stupidity. Even if they wanted him to suffer, they would try to avoid legal problems at all costs. It is good that they wanted to prevent him from killing another child but they still shouldn't act so hastily.
Stupidity entries are not meant to be stupid acts by characters. They're for minor plot holes. Without in-film evidence why the acts would be a plot hole, there is no stupidity mistake. And assuming what characters would or would not do does not make a valid mistake (not to mention revenge killings do happen in real life and in movies a lot).
No, it's not. What else were they supposed to do when he was caught and set free? It's still not their fault what happened next.
12th Sep 2019
Rocky IV (1985)
Stupidity: Considering Rocky keeps hitting Drago after the bell sounds to end the round in their main event fight shouldn't he be disqualified?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is up to the discretion of the ref. If he deems the strikes to not be particularly egregious he can let the fight continue. Even if they are deemed illegal strikes, that doesn't mean that Rocky will be automatically disqualified. The ref can dock a point from Rocky instead, which he very well might have done at some point which we never see. Since Rocky wins by knockout having a point docked doesn't matter.
10th May 2008
Lethal Weapon (1987)
Plot hole: One of the children is a witness that saw the man that planted the bomb in Dixie's house. He is said by a policeman to have been playing 'under the porch' and was close enough to make-out the Special Forces tatoo on the bomber's arm. Problem is, Dixie's house had no porch of any kind, and any other home's porch would've placed him too far to see such a small tatoo so confidently. (00:57:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The rear of Dixie's house is never shown. The house could conceivably have a back porch the kid could have been playing under and the killer could have used the back door.
10th Oct 2016
Clear And Present Danger (1994)
Corrected entry: Given the lengths that Escobedo is willing to go deal with people who have wronged him it's pretty hard to believe he would have wasted his time imprisoning the rest of Clark's team instead of killing them, especially after they caused so much damage to his cartel.
Correction: A choice that might seem out of character on its face is not a plot hole. Escobedo could have wanted to keep part of Clark's team alive to torture them, to get information out of them, to use them as leverage, to present them to the world as proof the U.S. Government was plotting against him, etc.
3rd Oct 2016
Clear And Present Danger (1994)
Corrected entry: The plot of this film relies on the notion that Cutter and Ritter (with the backing of the President) are able to conduct this illegal war against the cartels with this small team of soldiers blowing up planes and drug bunkers while making it appear to be coming from rival cartels. OK, fine. The problem though is when you bring an aircraft carrier into the story a lot more people are going to have to know what's going on that are not in the loop. You would have admirals, navy officials, possibly even the Joint Chiefs wanting to know why planes are taking off from one of their aircraft carriers just outside of Colombian waters. It didn't take Ryan any effort to find the operations report on the "car bomb" and put two and two together, so I find it very hard to believe none of the higher ups in the Navy were questioning Cutter or the President as to what was going on.
Correction: There is nothing in the film to suggest that nobody in the Navy questioned their orders. The film focuses on Jack Ryan and his efforts to uncover the operation, but that doesn't mean that the Navy wasn't also suspicious when an air strike was requested. It is plausible that Cutter and Ritter handed the Navy a credible cover story to authorize the air strike for Clark's team. We aren't shown any of this because it isn't relevant to the plot.
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?
3rd Aug 2019
Robocop 2 (1990)
Corrected entry: The Old Man in this sequel is the same sort of remorseless bastard as Dick Jones was in the first film. That's a huge character change since he was focused on doing what is right in the original, with seemingly no explanation whatsoever.
Correction: The Old Man was not focused on doing what is "right" in the original film. He was the mastermind behind OCP's plan for a hostile takeover of Detroit to replace it with Delta City. Part of that plan was allowing crime to get so bad the city would be forced to allow OCP to take over the police department. He showed no remorse whatsoever at Kenney's death during the board meeting and was instead frustrated at the financial set-backs ED-209 not being ready would cause him. He also had knowledge of the questionable ethics of the Robocop program, namely that potential subjects like Murphy were re-assigned to patrol violent areas to ensure they would be killed in the line of duty.
13th Jul 2019
Jurassic World (2015)
Plot hole: What broke the gate the boys went through while driving around in the gyro-sphere? As far as map tracking of the I-Rex it couldn't have been her. So what dangerous dinosaur was hanging out in the west plains?
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was the Indominous Rex. A major plot element is the fact the Indominous Rex can camouflage itself and hide its heat signature making it impossible for humans to track. The heroes then attempt to track the creature using the velociraptors.
9th Sep 2016
Eraser (1996)
Plot hole: Kruger's boss (James Caan) is in league with the bad guys. He convinces Kruger to help him protect the witness at the log cabin all in an effort to draw out Leigh from hiding and there are five bad guys at the cabin waiting for them. This of course is all a setup but what if one of those bad guys at the cabin had killed Kruger? Then Kruger's boss wouldn't know where to find Leigh and they would all be back to square one.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: A "What if?" scenario that doesn't actually play out can't be considered a plot hole. DeGuerrin is counting on the skills of Kruger and his own team being much higher than a bunch of cut-rate mercenaries, and that is exactly what happens. DeGuerrin enacts a plan that carries a high level of risk, but he and his cohorts have been backed into a corner. If they don't try, they will all go to jail. In addition, when you think about it every police/military raid carries the risk that someone you don't want to die might actually be killed. Risk is part of the job but that doesn't stop people from doing what needs to be done when the time calls for it, and to trust that their skills and training will keep their team safe.
12th May 2019
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
Corrected entry: Miles gets bitten by an inter-dimensional spider, however his body never fluctuates throughout the movie, and neither does he get sucked into the portal in the final fighting scene.
Correction: The other Spider-Men were fluctuating because they were in the wrong dimension. Miles is in the proper dimension, and thus he doesn't fluctuate. The film doesn't establish that being bitten by a radioactive spider from another dimension should have the same effect as being in the wrong dimension.
14th Dec 2009
No Country For Old Men (2007)
Corrected entry: When he first gets to Del Rio, Brolin's character buys a pair of Larry Mahan boots to replace the ones he lost at the river. He later hitch-hikes to Eagle Pass, gets wounded, and crosses to a hospital in Piedras Negras. He comes back into the Del Rio store for 'everything else', but he should still be in Eagle Pass, not Del Rio.
Correction: Eagle Pass and Del Rio are only separated by 50 miles. Knowing that people are looking for him, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Moss would get a ride back to Del Rio to shop for clothes and other supplies, and return to Eagle Pass only to retrieve the satchel. The border agent tells his subordinate to "get someone to help this man, he needs to get into town", it is perfectly reasonable that Moss would ask his ride to take him to Del Rio, it's less than an hour drive.
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.
8th Jul 2007
Starship Troopers (1997)
Corrected entry: In the scene when they are doing the live fire training course and the big guy gets shot in the head the bullets rip about 1/4 of his head off, but in the aerial view you can see his head is completely intact.
Correction: The bullet does not rip off 1/4 of his head. If you watch the shot in slow motion, the bullet goes into his eye and pulverizes the top left part of his skull. In the aerial shot it is clear the part of his skull that should be missing is indeed missing. At full speed the effect that shows the bullet entering his head has some unrealistic gore splatter that goes in all directions, giving the impression that the head was mostly blown apart, but it is quite easy to tell that's not what happened when viewed in slow motion.
26th Jun 2019
Coming to America (1988)
Corrected entry: When Akeem shows up at the Waldorf he is wearing a leather parka. He immediately leaves with Semmi and shows up at the McDowell house wearing a long overcoat.
Correction: They did not immediately leave, Semi was being bathed when Akeem showed up. Akeem changed into a suit with a long overcoat while Semi put on a similar outfit.