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.
BaconIsMyBFF
8th Jul 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He wanted it to seem like they were killed in the Elemental attack because it was cleaner. If they were killed by a drone it would be much more suspicious than being killed in the disaster. Once the plan goes wrong, he does simply send an Edith drone after them. If it wasn't for Spider-Man's timing, he would have been successful as well.
But that is the major problem, and why I think it was an egregious mistake in the movie. The plan "goes wrong" because it was idiotic. So idiotic that it is unrealistic that Beck, a highly intelligent person, would have made such a glaring oversight. Leaving the kids on the bridge but not trapping them at all allowed them to make an easy escape.
I think the point is that Beck thinks he is the smartest person in the room and that this plan is going to work. Should he take into account MJ and co's free will, yes, but he is so maniacal (and not thinking rationally) that it does not cross his mind. This is proven by the fact that as his plan is failing around him that he still wants his suit pressed and ready to meet the Queen because it will work out in the end in his mind. Also, to your point, having them walk in front of a train or walk off the bridge, would not make him a hero. He needed real casualties and Peter's friends were the place to start. Finally, in the sequence showing Beck and his team preparing for the attack, he was focused on the theatrics of the attack and, again, thought the size of it alone would work (he wanted it bigger, scarier, more forceful).
Suggested correction: Fury is well aware of the drone system (he berates Peter for misusing it earlier). If Beck simply utilised EDITH to kill the students, it would give away that Beck was using the drones for his own gain. Once Fury was dead, he could have used EDITH had the original plan failed, but he certainly couldn't do it until after Fury (and potentially other SHIELD agents) had been taken out. He was going to attack London no matter what, so he took the opportunity to take out Ned, MJ and Betty at the same time.
This doesn't stop him from using a targeted drone strike to kill the kids, he was planning on using it to kill Fury anyway. The fact that he fails in his strike against Fury is irrelevant to the fact that he needed those kids dead and decided to take a round-about way of accomplishing this goal. Again, he doesn't have to use a drone strike, he is perfectly capable of using the illusion technology to force the bus off a cliff or into some other immediate danger. Having a henchman drive the bus to a bridge and hope the kids are dumb enough not to escape danger when literally nothing is forcing them to just stand there and be killed is ridiculously idiotic.
Suggested correction: Characters, even intelligent ones, are allowed to make bad tactical decisions. Real-life history is replete with examples. Just because it seems unlikely doesn't make it a plot hole.
True - this was originally submitted as "stupidity", which is slightly different, but this seemed like such a massive oversight that it qualified as a plot hole.
Suggested correction: Beck's intentions were to make it look like the kids were killed in the attack by the monster. Had he just killed them with a drone out right, it would have obviously looked like murder and foul play bringing in more investigations and potential problems for him.
But again, he doesn't need to use a drone strike he can use the illusion technology to trick them into an accident. Even what he chooses to do (just leaving them on the bridge) would have also been fine had he trapped them there at all. Just leaving them there without trapping them is so stupid it is unbelievable. It's like leaving someone on train tracks but not tying them up.
Suggested correction: He was an insane person and wasn't thinking fully rationally.
20th Jun 2019
Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019)
Stupidity: The eco-terrorists leave the Orca completely unattended allowing Madison to take it without anyone realizing until she is long gone. In addition, they don't post any guards at the exit of the bunker and Madison simply walks away without anyone noticing her at all.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They leave the Orca in their empty command room within a bunker filled with loyal men. There is no way anyone could have broken in and stolen it. Madison had the advantage of already being in the bunker and even then had to navigate through the air ducts in order to steal the Orca and escape. They wouldn't have armed men visible immediately outside because they didn't want anyone to notice that they were there.
Either one of these issues by themselves wouldn't be particularly stupid but the combination of them both would indeed allow someone to just walk in and take the Orca. You don't need to post a visible guard at the exit, but nobody is watching the exit at all.
3rd Sep 2018
The Equalizer 2 (2018)
Corrected entry: Susan Plummer is in Denzel Washington's flat when he arrives home but there is no explanation as to how she got in.
Correction: Susan is a former DIA operative. The implication is that she used her skills to get into the apartment undetected.
Also of note is that McCall is aware that someone has broken in and reacts to it as if it is a threat, until he discovers it is Susan.
9th Apr 2018
Misery (1990)
Corrected entry: The plot of the film is that Annie Wilkes is angry with Paul for killing Misery in his book. As this is unpublished she gets Paul to burn this. The rest of the film Paul writes about Misery's resurrection. This would not be the case as she was alive and well in his last published book.
Correction: This is an incorrect explanation of the plot. Misery is killed in the last published novel that Paul wrote, but that novel has not yet been released. Paul lets Annie read the manuscript for the novel he hopes will spark his "post-Misery" career, which Annie dislikes because of excessive profanity. Annie then buys the new Misery novel when it is released and discovers that at the end, Misery is killed. This causes Annie to become enraged and force Paul to write a new manuscript where Misery is "resurrected."
1st Oct 2014
Mad Max 2 (1981)
Corrected entry: At the end of the opening chase Max starts to collect the leaking fuel from the crashed car. Only problem is, the fuel is so contaminated from the dirt in the containers he is using, it makes the fuel unusable for his car, considering his red low fuel warning light is on.
Correction: In a post-apocalyptic wasteland where people are literally killing each other for even small amounts of fuel, it stands to reason people like Max would have a means to filter any fuel they find and make it usable.
4th Mar 2005
Mad Max 2 (1981)
Corrected entry: The climactic chase scene at the end of the movie has us believe that the tanker being driven by Max is full of "precious fuel", which is why The Humongous and his goons are desperately trying to halt it. But during one shot, the ending of the movie is spoiled because red dirt is seen spilling from one of the pipes leading to the tank. The climax of the movie, of course, is when Max discovers that he was used as a decoy hauling dirt, not fuel. But when the dirt is seen spewing from the tanker in an earlier shot, that surprise is ruined.
Correction: A movie potentially spoiling its ending is not a mistake, especially if it was a deliberate choice as is the case here. This would be classified as a hint that not everything is as it seems.
5th May 2003
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Corrected entry: In the German version the Americans are translated, so they speak German... but the Germans also speak German, yet they don't understand each other.
Correction: This is not a mistake, but an extremely common technique used to make viewing the film easier for speakers of a particular language and avoid the need for extensive subtitles. German viewers are expected to take it as a given that the American characters are actually speaking English to one another and that Upham is the only character that can actually speak and understand fluent German.
Makes me wonder how they explain "fubar" though.
I'm always curious how slang terms that are that specific are translated into other languages. Take it to the forums and see if anyone who speaks German can watch that version. I'd be curious to see the answer myself.
13th Jun 2005
National Treasure (2004)
Corrected entry: When Ben, Riley, and Abigail show up at Ben's fathers house, the screen shows a title stating they are now in Philadelphia, PA. However, when Ben's father confesses that he donated the Silence letters, he says "I donated them to the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia." Normally when you tell someone where something is, you don't include the city if you are located in that city at the time. (Not to mention that I'm sure Ben knows exactly where that museum is anyway). This coincides with the next scene where you see sky shots of downtown Philadelphia and the Ben Franklin Bridge, implying they are driving into the downtown area. That means they would be coming in from New Jersey. Maybe Ben's father is supposed to be living in Jersey somewhere, and not in Philadelphia.
Correction: As a somewhat educational film targeted at a family audience, this line is written this way to make it clear to the viewers, many of them children, that the Franklin Institute is in Philadelphia. Perhaps a better way to have worded it would be "I gave them to the Franklin Institute, right here in Philadelphia" or something similar. Regardless, awkward dialogue is not a movie mistake.
9th Jun 2018
Universal Soldier (1992)
Other mistake: When Scott is pulling the other Unisols through the store and asks the kid where the freezer is, the kid is using a staple gun instead of a pricing gun like he should.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: He's not pricing items. The kid is using the staple gun to re-seal a cardboard box. He is shown trying to close the lid and using the staple gun to seal the box when he encounters Scott.
5th Dec 2013
Disturbia (2007)
Plot hole: Turner locks himself and Ashley in her car so he can confront her. However after his speech, Turner somehow manages to open the door without unlocking it.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It is accurate that Turner can open the door without unlocking it, all modern cars can be opened from the inside whether the door is locked or not. Ashley never actually tries to open the door, she reaches for the handle and stops once Turner locks the door. Since the movie never actually shows Ashley try to open the door, this doesn't count as a plot hole. If anything this is a character mistake, Ashley should be well aware that she can't be "locked in" a car that new.
2nd Mar 2018
Darkman (1990)
Plot hole: Whatever happened to the one legged henchman? He was one of the villain's lead goons in the first half of the film, but he simply disappears after the scene in Chinatown. The previous correction that "Peyton didn't have time to track him down" is complete nonsense. He literally vanishes from the film. (Due to a deleted scene, but that's no excuse either way.) There's absolutely no reason he still wouldn't be in Durant's gang and in the remainder of the film.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: You may not agree with the filmmaker's choice, but that doesn't make it a plot hole. It's an unresolved character thread, nothing more.
It's not the filmmakers' choice, though. He was meant to be in more of the movie, but his death scene got cut by the studio to shorten the runtime. So yes, it is a plot-hole, given he was one of the main goons and simply vanishes.
This still isn't a plot hole. In the reality of the film, that character does not partake in any of the gang's activities after the last time he's seen. His presence is not integral to the plot and the story still works without his arc being resolved, so this isn't a plot hole by definition. A plot hole is a gap in the film's logic that cannot be explained, and a side character not having their story resolved on screen does not fall under that definition.
1st Jun 2016
U.S. Marshals (1998)
Corrected entry: It's perfectly legal for cops to hold suspects at gunpoint when making an arrest. So when Newman caught Royce holding Sheridan at gunpoint, he could've just taken him into custody and killed him later. Instead he does the stupidest thing possible, he shoots Newman, which also lets Sheridan escape.
Correction: Taking Sheridan into custody and killing him later would have looked incredibly suspicious. Royce is trying to stage the scene so it looks like he was forced to shoot Sheridan in self-defense. Shooting Newman isn't stupid at all, if anything it helps Royce's story as he can pin the shooting on Sheridan. He can't let Newman live at this point, he's planning on executing Sheridan and the second Newman walks into that room that plan would go awry unless Newman dies as well. The fact that Sheridan gets away is credited to his reflexes and skill, not to Royce's stupidity.
15th Mar 2019
Rocky (1976)
Corrected entry: When Adrian is in Rocky's apartment, he tells her that he no longer has a phone. Several scenes later when Rocky confronts Paulie for bringing reporters to the meat company, he tells Paulie that he should have called him first or left a message.
3rd Aug 2018
Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
Stupidity: After the team break Solomon Lane out of custody, they drive around Paris with him in the front seat of their car. Lane is still wearing a straightjacket, bound in chains and has a black bag over his head. The IMF team drive him through crowded streets, past multiple police cars in full view of everyone just minutes after an armoured convoy transporting a dangerous prisoner (who everyone is now looking for) has been attacked. None of the Parisian police seem to notice this and none of the IMF team questions the tactical soundness of this approach.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: What's stupid about this approach? The IMF team is trusting that with their skills and experience they can easily evade any police that spot them. Which of course they do. Placing Lane in the trunk would have kept him out of sight but that doesn't really matter because they weren't planning on sneaking him out, they were planning on a quick escape.
10th Aug 2017
Wonder Woman (2017)
Stupidity: Steve Trevor is the leader of a group of Allied spies, and they are traveling with a gorgeous woman who has shown to have amazing fighting skills and super powers, but they allow a group photo to be taken with Diana in her armor. They don't know who is taking the photograph nor what they intend to do with it. Their photograph circulating through a news publication or passed on to an enemy's intelligence service could compromise himself and the rest of his team, and they would absolutely know that. Undercover agents do not pose for photographs.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The photographer is not a reporter, he is one of the villagers. The photo was not taken to be circulated through print media, it was taken by the villagers to commemorate the day they were liberated. There only appears to be one copy of the photograph (which Bruce Wayne finds and sends to Diana), so the likelihood of it falling into the German's hands is incredibly slim.
It does not matter who took the photograph or why, or what he chooses to do with it. Undercover agents do not pose for photographs.
12th Dec 2014
Die Hard 2 (1990)
Corrected entry: Right before The Windsor flight crashes, the stewardess tells two passengers that they've made arrangements so they would make their next flight. Obviously this could only be done with communication with the ground. If they had sky phones the tower would have called them to warn what was happening.
Correction: This isn't a mistake, this is ordinary customer service. She is assuming her company would arrange travel for the inconvenienced passengers because airlines typically do. She doesn't know anything about the terrorists, Barnes hasn't yet been able to contact the flight crews to tell them what's really going on.
Disagree, she'd say "we will have." or similar. Any customer-facing staff would know not to promise something they cannot guarantee. She would assure them that arrangements should have been taken care of and she'd update them as soon as she knew more. Also, why was she only now, after all this time, reassuring them. If she truly believed the company would have already taken care of arrangements, she'd have told them this a long time ago.
8th Mar 2016
Twins (1988)
Corrected entry: The two men (who left the car for Webster) told Webster the "parking attendant" liked the car. However, there are many different parking attendants with different shifts and exits in a big place like LAX. How did Webster instantly pinpoint the right one?
Correction: Webster knows when and where the car was dropped off. It's a good bet that attendant works that lot regularly. Even if he doesn't it wouldn't be hard at all to ask another attendant to tell you who was working that lot on a particular day. The fact that Webster eventually finds the right person doesn't mean that he "instantly" found the right person. We just aren't shown every step he takes because that wouldn't be interesting.
3rd Oct 2016
Die Hard (1988)
Corrected entry: When agent Johnson calls for the helicopters to leave in 5 minutes to attack the terrorists at the end of the film, they are standing at Nakatomi Plaza. Five minutes later they are seen in the helicopter. How did they get from the tower to the helicopters for a long ride through LA?
Correction: Special Agent Johnson says "I want that air support ready to lift off in five minutes. Damn right, fully armed. We're on the way." He's not saying the helicopters will be at Nakatomi in five minutes, he's saying that he and Agent Johnson will be where the helicopters are in five minutes. The helicopters are on the ground somewhere within a five minute drive. Special Agent Johnson simply wants the choppers to be ready to take off as soon as he and Agent Johnson arrive. The "long ride through LA" is only about 30 seconds, which would make perfect sense if the helicopters were a five minute drive away from Nakatomi.
22nd May 2017
Fast Five (2011)
Corrected entry: Reyes is the only one able to open his vault in the police station as shown in the movie. All the cash from the cash houses are taken to the vault and we see Reyes arrive to check the money is in the vault. How did the money get in the vault if only Reyes himself can open it? To assume the vault is kept open would be ludicrous as it would defy the whole point of the vault. (00:52:30)
Correction: Reyes has all of his money taken from the safe houses to the police station, all at the same time. Yes, the vault is kept open until all the money gets there and then it is closed. There is no other way to do what Reyes wants without leaving the vault open. Bear in mind that under normal circumstances the money itself has very little actual security, because nobody else would be crazy enough to attack one of Reyes' safe houses.
While your correction is good in respect of the money being taken to the vault, my mistake was referring to the point before the heists. Reyes orders the money to be taken to the vault after the one safe house is hit. And when all the cash is being brought it, yes the vault would be kept open. But what about before the first hit on the safe house? It is extremely unlikely that the vault would have been open prior to this. So how was the vault opened to allow all the money to be brought in in the first place? If only Reyes can open it.
We don't know anything at all about the safe or its contents prior to the money being consolidated. It very well could have been completely empty and unlocked. Reyes could have unlocked the safe, left the building, and only returned once all his money was there. There just isn't enough information for this to be a plot hole. Remember, Reyes is only doing all of this because Dom burned his money. He fully trusts the cops to keep his money safe and it is fairly well established that nobody else in Rio would even attempt to steal from him.
19th Feb 2013
Kindergarten Cop (1990)
Other mistake: The toy store manager has his assistant gift wrap an empty box. The race car set is still on the table fully assembled.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: The manager brings the box to the counter and tells the assistant to gift wrap the box, but we don't actually see what happens in the store after Crisp leaves. There is no indication how much time has passed. It is plausible that the manager brought the box to the assistant and told them to gift wrap it, but that the assistant knows they will also have to disassemble the toy and put it in the box first. We don't ever see the car set still in the window after the customer leaves so we can't assume the assistant wrapped an empty box.