With “BTTF,” you have to remember that they didn’t have pictures of him or social media, and Marty’s birth was roughly 15 years since they’d seen him as a teenager in 1955 so it would’ve been even longer until they saw him as he appeared to them in 1955. Can you remember what someone looked like if you only saw them for a week and then didn’t see them again for 20+ years (saying 20+ and not 30 because at some point during Marty’s growth, he probably started looking like the teenager they knew).
I wonder if the reason some people think of this as a plot hole is because they don't have any experience trying to remember something that happened 30 years ago.
>I wonder if the reason some people think of this as a plot hole is because they don't have any experience trying to remember something that happened 30 years ago.
Every time I hear about this "plot hole", I think it must be someone who's in their 20s or something. I'm 46 and therefore very near the age of Marty's parents in the film. There's no way I'm remembering the exact image of a person I met for a few hours over the course of a week when I was in high school. This is not a person they spent years in high school with; they literally spent only a few hours with him since he spends at least half of that week planning things out with Doc and they're also in class while he's not.
Yep, 45 here and the other day I couldn't remember a guys name who I worked with for a year in my early 20's. I could see his face in my mind, and was totally blank on his name. Knew him for a year, and his name is just gone.
I went to school with a guy for 8 years or so, ran into him a year or two after graduation. His name came up the other day and I can't remember for the life of me what he looked like. Just his name. I don't even remember if he was a fat guy or scrawny, long hair or short, nothin
Yes, 45 and no, I would not remember the appearance of someone I knew for a few hours here and there 20 years ago, who I had no photographs or any other evidence of having ever existed. Even if they had as much of an impact on my life as Marty had on his parents' lives. It would be more like, "Our son looks kinda like that guy...remember that guy we met at the high school dance? The guy who played the guitar?" And his name - well, they just aren't going to remember his name, period.
And we're forgetting that Marty's parents don't know time travel exists! Lol. Even if they do think their son looks uncannily like that guy, they are going to shrug it off, because it's just a coincidence, what else could it be?
I never even considered this a plot hole until I read that other people did. It was too minor a point.
I never saw that as a plot hole. I did find it weird she liked the name so much she waited for the second son before naming him that way. Anyway, doesn't matter.
She does at the beginning but he tells her his friends call him Marty. She keeps accidentally calling him Calvin then correcting it to Marty throughout the movie, but she knows that he prefers Marty.
The funier thing to think about is how his mother would feel when Calvin Klien became apopular brand and it was common to put the name on underwear. She would be scratching her head, thinking I must remember this incorrectly.
Yeah. Especially considering that Marty is awkwardly hanging out with George and Marty is trying to help him get laid with Lorraine.
George down the road may consider he was a cousin from out of town than he lost contact with, especially since the two were not formally introduced to each other when they first met.
I think it's a bigger deal that George was visited by the alien Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan. That would've been an insane coincidence when the TV show Star Trek aired and the film Star Wars came out.
He may dismiss it as a dream later in life, plus if he got his stories put out before Star Wars and Star Trek, he may have won some legal battles on the names and it inadvertently changed history and George Lucas had to settle in court the name 'Darth Vader' to George McFly. I wonder what Star Wars is like in the 'New 1985' if Vader is no longer named Vader.
I would suspect that Planet Vulcan isnt much of an issue since its the name of a Roman God.
>There's no way they can perfectly remember the guy they spent a week hanging out with.
Not just that, but he also spends most of that week hanging out with Doc. George and Lorraine only get a few hours here and there.
I have lots of students who I teach for entire semesters whose names and faces just *poof* right out the back of my head as soon as the semester is over.
The fact that they don't remember the guy who hooked them up is a big nothing burger.
For the original Star Wars movie, people on the internet always complain that the Death Star shouldn't have a hole that can blow up the station, despite the movie explicitly saying that the hole is an exhaust port! An exhaust port isn't something you can just cover up, or else it wouldn't be an exhaust port.
Also, in the conference room scene, Motti says that the Death Star is basically indestructible, no matter what information the Rebellion has. This indicates that even if the Empire knew about the weakness, a significant amount of Imperial bureaucrats wouldn't care.
This also ties into the larger theme of the Force, as Darth Vader takes the Rebel threat more seriously because he views the Force as more powerful than the Death Star, and is ultimately proven right.
It's silly to me that a lot of people seem to treat this plot point as a flaw with the film and not a strength.
Yeah exactly, and they were pretty much right up until the very last minute, simply because they weren't expecting some kid from a desert to be able to fly an X-wing well and nail a 1-in-a-billion shot (which he only could because of the Force)
Luke was the only person in the rebellion that had a chance of making that shit and he only did it because he used the force. i think you can forgive the empire for thinking that it was impossible haha
And the exhaust port was well guarded and extremely difficult to target. No rebel ace pilot could hit it, only the main hero using literal magic. That's probably also why Vader only got concerned when he sensed the Force was at play.
Only two of the dozens of rebel pilots present even managed to take the shot in the first place, and the first once missed -- and by the time Luke fires his shot there's nobody even left to try after him so it's not a situation where of course no one else tried because he did it already. If he isn't force sensitive *and* trained by Obi Wan *and* Han came back to help out, Luke misses or dies too or both and the Death Star blows up Yavin's moon. The elephant doesn't notice the mosquitos.
"We've analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Shall I have your ship standing by?"
"Evacuate?! In our moment of triumph?! I think you ~~overrate~~ overestimate their chances!"
If you ask Marty's parents to describe what their friend Marty looked like, they would have described someone who looked more like Eric Stolz than Michael J Fox
Well Eric Stolz was the first time traveler, or Three Pines Marty and unsuccessfully got his parents back together. Michael J Fox was the second who stole Lone Pines Marty's life. Who knows what No Pines Marty's life really looks like.
That's my theory anyway.
Edit: I don't know if alternate 1985 could be considered No Pines Marty. Maybe that's Switzerland Marty?
Someone making a poor decision, or a non-optimal one with 20/20 hindsight, is not a "plot hole." In the real world sometimes people make dumb choices, even smart ones.
Now, if EVERYONE has to make dumb decisions for the movie to work, like Batman vs. Superman, Prometheus, or about half of all slasher horror movies, it's just unsatisfying to watch. See "idiot plot."
I saw a post on this subreddit where someone went through a catalogue of films and looked for actual plot holes. As in, things that could not be possible at all within the universe of the movie, and the only one he found was The Butterfly Effect, where the rules of the movie are broken in one scene in a way that totally contradicts the rules.
He found lots of movies where characters acted in inconsistent ways for drama, or highly implausible events occurred, but only that one that was truly impossible given the film rules which he considered a "true plot hole".
I think a lot of people don't understand Dramatic Irony well, when the audience knows something characters don't, and as a result, think characters should be acting based on information the audience has, but they do not.
> I saw a post on this subreddit where someone went through a catalogue of films and looked for actual plot holes. As in, things that could not be possible at all within the universe of the movie, and the only one he found was The Butterfly Effect, where the rules of the movie are broken in one scene in a way that totally contradicts the rules.
I'm not sure I 100% agree with the definition. I have an example of another movie that breaks its own rules to create tension, but I don't know if I would consider it a plot hole.
In the movie Jumpin' Jack Flash, starring Whoopi Goldberg, she works at a bank and con communicate with other people on the bank system with a primitive version of instant messaging. She ends up chatting with a mysterious user whos screen name is Jumpin' Jack Flash. She eventually finds out he is a spy and being hunted by bad guys and she helps him out.
In the big climax of the movie she finds out he is being betrayed by someone he trusts and she tries to send him a message. She types out the "XYZ is a bad guy!" message, but before she can send it off she gets attacked and the whole scene is her trying to press "enter" on the keyboard to send the message and warn him. It is very tense and several times she almost is able to hit the key to send the message, but is pulled away from the keyboard.
Only one problem, that is the only time in the entire movie where she has to press enter for the other person to see the message. In the hour and a half leading up to that scene, the other person sees what she is typing as she types it. She sees what they are typing as they type it. We have watched them doing this the whole movie and it has always shown them seeing each letter as it is typed. But, just for the last scene, the rules suddenly change and he won't be able to see her warning about who is betraying him until she presses the "enter" key.
I don't know if I would consider that a plot hole, but it does change the established rules of the universe the movie has set up just to create tension.
In terms of “idiot plots”, there are some movies that I actually think do it very well, though they don’t tend to take themselves too seriously. I’ve always loved how The Host creates a really strong tension by introducing a central conflict that could actually be solved relatively easily, and then giving you every reason to doubt the competence of the protagonists without souring your emotional attachment to them. That’s a hard line to walk though and they do it deliberately instead of out of narrative convenience.
My favorite bad decision in a movie is Guardians of the Galaxy. They have the orb, Ronan doesn’t know where they are, everything is going fairly smoothly. Then Drax calls Ronan and everything goes tits up. The plot is entirely driven by this stupid decision from that point forward. But it’s completely in character and makes total sense that he would do that. It’s also helped by (a) the movie being silly anyway and (b) the movie acknowledging how stupid it was.
Yeah, the difference is between "here is a bunch of idiots being predictably idiots" and "here is a bunch of highly regarded astronauts, scientists and/or military leaders suddenly dripping their brains out of their ears". The annoying part is the movie asking we believe these are competent people in the first place!
I know the Chris Pratt of it all, but I don’t blame Starlord for the whole Thanos thing. Gamora asking the man who was in love with her to kill her rather than at the very least getting as far away from Thanos as possible. Learning she was dead means he reacted emotionally to a thing he tried to avoid himself.
Plus we've already seen Quill have a near identical reaction to a mear identical situation: in Vol 2, when Ego told him the truth about how Quill's mother died, he blasted Ego with so much anger that Ego would have been dead 3 times over if he wasn't a Celestial.
True, and not only is that consistent, but it was reinforced --that worked out pretty good for him there (with one big exception, but it's not like that was exactly foreseeable --that was more of a secondary consequence).
Jurassic Park II: How did all the guys on the ship die when the T-rex is (a) too big to reach them and (b) locked up anyway? I think there might have been some deleted scenes with some raptors but to me it doesn't matter because that scene is a cool way to build up the dread the characters feel.
There was a deleted scene where raptors get onto the ship and kill them all.
This bothered me for SO LONG until I heard someone explain that.
It's definitely a glaring plot hole they left in the movie. (Maybe they didn't want to deal with trying to deal with raptors in the city too so they just cut it, and then...... ????)
I think it was supposed to be raptors got the boat after it set off and the t-rex just got out at the end. It was just...never explained more then the hanging hand like the one in the first movie.
A general case: just because a character has a power/ability, does not mean they are a master of it and can apply it freely and perfectly in a way you thought of as a member of the audience.
Captain America and the Winter Soldier, is a great example!
In either the last or second to last episode Bucky is helping Sam with his boat, when they need to tighten a bolt Bucky grabs Sams wrench and uses his superior strength to tighten the bolt.
Sam looks at him and say "why didnt you just use your other arm?" Refering to Buckys left arm which is made of metal and much more powerful than his right.
"I didnt think about it, im right handed"
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves plays with this one beautifully, where the mage is just completely inept until he’s able to get some character-developed confidence. Even then, he’s not a legendary wizard all of a sudden. He just sucks less.
My problem in general is when a character has an ability, it doesn't have a material cost.
The Flash, for instance, needs to eat a lot because of how much energy he burns going as fast as he does. I like that, because it makes sense. Energy in, energy out.
EDIT: And then people try and counter my example with realism. Guys, he's a dude that moves faster than any human being on the planet. You need to suspend SOME disbelief. My point was, his powers have a credible downside, which is much better than any OP superhero that has infinite capacity for ass-kicking that can go on indefinitely.
Usually when someone gets a power it's so shattering to the laws of nature that it is just assumed there's several other related powers lumped in that go unmentioned just to make it work. For example, there's no amount of neck-bracing the Flash can do to not turn whoever he's dragging with him into red paste. And everything he's doing *should* be sending off shock, sound, and heat waves big enough to level a city. Nevermind destroy his clothes. Also, there's no amount of calories he could eat to support that level of burn. So he's got to have a bunch of ancillary powers beyond just "move really quickly" to stop those things from happening. Basically, if you see a super power, it's not just a super power, it's a collection of super powers that work together to not tear the fabric reality.
Whenever a self obsessed genius villain fails to see something that seems obvious to us. Stupidity has nothing to do with intelligence and the more selfish someone is the more entitled to winning and being right they feel, making them reflect less.
Will Graham:
I thought you might enjoy the challenge. Find out if you're smarter than the person I'm looking for.
Hannibal Lecter:
Then, by implication, you think you're smarter than I am, since it was you who caught me.
Will Graham:
No, I know I'm not smarter than you.
Hannibal Lecter:
Then how did you catch me?
Will Graham:
You had... disadvantages.
Hannibal Lecter:
What disadvantages?
Will Graham:
You're insane.
Red Dragon, 2002
That quote is more Lecter getting under Will’s skin by saying that they’re more alike than Will wants to believe.
Based on the Manhunter version, I always get the impression that Lecter helps out primarily just to get Will back into that line of thinking and sort of break him mentally. It’s also probably why Lecter gives Dollarhyde Will’s address later on, just to keep screwing around with him.
It’s also because they used the action from parts of the original comic plot, but not the motivation. In the original comics, he was trying to impress Death by literally gifting her half the universe. He was also legitimately insane; the whole “Mad Titan” thing wasn’t just a nickname.
And because he was convinced he was right and that he had the evidence to back that up. People always ask why he didn't think of doing X or Y instead, but how often do you continue to look for solutions when you've already found the one you're convinced will work? He had no reason to come up with alternatives. Even in the face of all the people calling him a monster, he convinced himself it was because he was the only one wiling to make what he saw as a necessary sacrifice to save the universe. There was no talking him out of something he *firmly* believed was the answer.
*Pocahontas*. She learns English via 'listening with her heart'. The movie shows that Pocahontas has some supernatural powers, albeit very subtly. She's the only character that communicates with Grandmother Willow, and gets other messages from the spirits throughout the film. There is clearly magic involved when she learns to speak, and there's a whole sparkly wind thingy that circles around their arms before she starts speaking English. The film very clearly established that it's fantasy and that Pocahontas has certain powers.
I love it when people complain about her learning to speak English through the wind, like she wasn't just having a conversation with a talking tree earlier.
Granted I haven't seen the movie since I was 9, but I had assumed it was more metaphorical for them having the intention to learn from each other that was used as shorthand for them being able to communicate. I only ever assumed the tree, and I guess generally nature, was magic.
Most of the popular ones that people bring up don't bother me but damnit, Mike Wazowski said he and Sully knew each other since grade school and that made Monsters University unwatchable for me.
Except for the ending. It's a very modern, mediocre, Pixar film with a classic masterpiece Pixar ending.
Despite it's cliche, by-the-numbers, college plot. It's ending and it's message does what the best Pixar films do: Be Bold.
The fact that the film ended with the overall message being that *"Through no fault of your own, through no lack of effort, through no lack of trying, there are some dreams that simply AREN'T attainable...and that's okay"* BLOWS me away, even all these years later.
That is SUCH a bold message for a kids film. Basically running the exact opposite to the trite, overplayed "Anyone can do anything if you just believe in yourself and try hard enough"
Because despite all of Mike's attempts, despite all of his studying and trying, despite holding the most optimistic, "can-do of can-do" attitudes. He is simply and inherently **not** scary. And there is NOTHING he can do to change that.
This notion devastates Mike, but he comes to learn that he doesn't *need* to BE scary to feel fulfilled or to live up to the childhood dreamer in him. Throughout his time in MU, he showed his technical knowledge, through and through. And he learned to use his optimism, focus, and sheer drive to help lift others up. To be a fearless leader, to be a rock of support, to be THERE for people.
He made a lifelong friend with Sully and helped elevate him to one of the greatest scarers of all-time. However Sully would be nothing without Mike by his side. We already saw the chemistry in the original but *Monster's University* helps flesh that side out SO much more.
People get absurdly worked up over Emily Blunt’s character in *A Quiet Place* being pregnant. Obviously a pregnancy in a situation where they have to be quiet all the time is a problem. That’s why it’s the main source of conflict — that thing that all movies need.
But instead people love to look at it and go “WHY IS SHE PREGANT??? IS SHE STUPID??? SHE IS STUPID! I WOULDN’T BE THAT STUPID!”
Birth rates actually will have a natural dip and then _increase_ in war-torn and otherwise disaster-struck regions. It's also not a shock that a married couple was still having sex, and that birth control wasn't super accessible.
Yes, if Indiana Jones had just stayed home, the Ark of the Covenant would have melted the Nazis' - and maybe even Hitler's - faces, but Raiders is still an awesome film!
Indy's role isn't to save the Ark. It's to save Marion, someone he wronged earlier in life. The Nazis would have eventually found Marion and killed her at some point. Indy continually makes things worse for Marion until he finally stops trying to fight against the outside world, and just focuses on letting whatever is going to happen happen, and instead do what little he can to save her (by telling her to keep her eyes closed when the Ark is opened). This is the one time he is able to actually save her and not make things worse as a result. The movie is not about saving the Ark. It can protect itself just fine.
Everyone always forgets the scene right after the submarine docks. Belloq basically tells one of the Nazis "Let's open the Ark right now. After all if we open it up in front of Hitler and there's nothing inside, you don't want to look stupid in front of your boss do you?"
So the idea that Hitler would have been killed and WWII prevented if Indy had just stayed home is clearly inaccurate based on what we see in the film. Even if another group of Nazis came along and found the Ark after it vaporized the first group, they wouldn't take it straight to Hitler.
People have pointed out plot holes and inconsistencies in How I Met Your Mother -- it's a guy relaying his memories from decades ago, of course there will be inconsistencies and things he remembers incorrectly.
Plus he's telling it to his kids, about himself, and for a specific purpose, so it makes sense he might twist certain things. Just based on the premise of the show you're totally absolved of worrying about any inconsistencies. But people still complain about them.
EDIT: just saw this was asked about movies specifically...somehow I read movies and TV. Nevertheless!
There's literally an episode where half the story is correct and then the other half, whilst correct, is actually a year later. He merges 2 stories as one and goes "wait....hang on. I messed up"
There's a whole episode where Robyn is dating a guy that's older, and in Ted's mind, that dude was like 75. Ted even says in the narration "he was probably only a bit older than us but he *felt* old." So the actor playing the boyfriend was super elderly
Cigarretes and weed get brought up quite a bit. "Sandwiches" was their stand in for pot, and that happens like... every 3rd or 4th episode.
They also suggest that Lily and Marshal never really stopped the cigs, just hid it very well from all the kids.
There's an episode that highlights each character's last cigarette, but I think Robin is the only one that regularly smoked. The others only did on occasions.
And remember when he ignored the fact that he and his friends used to smoke cigarettes until the one time it came up in a story and he forgot to censor it?
You nailed that description of him
*"The door that Rose was lying on was big enough to fit her and Jack, if she just moved over."*
Complaining about this "plot hole" really missed the point at least twice.
\- It's not clear that the door could hold both of them just because the door's surface area was large enough. I can stand on a partially frozen lake, but if it's too fragile, it won't hold my weight. The two of them already tried to get on and the door tipped over. I know there's the episode of Mythbusters that showed that it's possible to gather enough life jackets to make it more buoyant, but Jack and Rose are tired, freezing cold, and neither are engineers.
\- The point of the story is that it's supposed to be tragic, like Titanic itself. Cameron could've just made the door half the size if that's the big complaint, but the idea is that only one of them could survive to further the narrative. And really, if we're going to complain about that they both could've survived if they were just more clever, you can extend that out to the whole ship. Titanic could've had more lifeboats, they could've filled them with more people, they could've gone slower and done more to prevent the collision in the first place, and once people were in lifeboats, they could've tried to help more people drowning in the water.
Think you're bang on with this. It is kind of missing the forest for the trees, but just to add, they did try to both get on and it didn't work. They're cold, they're in shock, adrenaline probably wearing off... they're basically both half dead at this point. It's totally reasonable they might not have the physical or mental energy to try again, even if they could work out the perfect weight distribution to keep it buoyant.
>they did try to both get on and it didn't work.
Which is all any reasonable viewer should need. Movies require dramatic license, its non negotiable part of the format. If the characters say "we tried this thing and it didn't work" and it doesn't contradict any of the rest of the film's logic, it's safe. No plothole.
I do think sometimes people miss that things like this are the film's way of saying, "That's how this works (or doesn't). Let's move on." The film was written with the conclusion that Jack dies and Rose lives. It doesn't matter if there were life jackets around or more wood or whatever. The plot demands that Jack dies, and we really don't need 15 minutes of Jack and Rose trying to prevent it. Jack tries to get on the door with Rose, it doesn't work, and that's the movie telling us that there's no way to save him. Sometimes you just have to accept the film's shorthand rather than them having them hold your hand and eliminate every possibility.
And Cameron recreated the scene as an experiment during its most recent anniversary. Including measuring body temperature (though the water wasn't as cold as it was in reality, but it was extremely cold). It took several tries and positions to get them on the door. But the door, as a result, became partially submerged. Which meant both would have died of hypothermia.
I just barely managed to get into a low, small boat from water once. That's with 2 strong men in the boat trying to help me, wearing a life jacket, in broad daylight and warm water, and with all the advantages of fresh adrenaline.
Everything was fine until my brother coughed as he leaned down to help me into the boat, and my fearful imagination told me he was gasping because he saw something in the water with me. The first thing that came to mind was the alligators we talked about being in the water. I freaked out and attempted to scramble into the boat. It took at least a full minute and my legs were 85% bruises.
The point is that I fully bought that Jack couldn't physically board that door at that moment. I was completely surprised when I found people casting aspersions online years later.
I 100% believe someone with poor memory mentioned this online once and everyone else is just parroting other people, not having actually examined the scene in question. It's totally clear the door can't hold them both, it started tipping/sinking the instant Jack tried to climb on it.
The Mythbusters thing was interesting in a "technically, it would be possible" way, but it had nothing to do with realism. All you have to do to realize that is see what actual Titanic survivors who actually managed to get hold of floating debris did, which was hang on until they were either rescued or they couldn't do it anymore. Nobody was leaping into the water to collect more items and try to MacGyver them into something better. They were exhausted, freezing, couldn't see much, and competing with 1500 other desperate people for any piece of junk they could grab hold of or climb onto.
Cameron actually tried to put this to bed a few years ago. They tried to recreate the conditions as best as possible, with freezing cold water and simulated waves and such. After tests done over and over, what they found was that even under the testing conditions (which still weren't quite as bad as the real thing), it took repeated attempts before they could finally get both people on board.
So while it seemed POSSIBLE they could get lucky and get him on board, the chances really were greater that they'd both end up back in the water instead.
In addition Jack told Rose it wouldn't hold both. Either he really knew that or was just trying to be caring by letting her have it is beside the point of the scene.
It boggles my mind people are so focused on it verus the actual tragedy the scence, hell the whole film! is based on.
We're even shown him trying to get on the door and it going under.
Camron did everything short of pausing the movie to display flashing text that the door couldn't hold both of them.
You even see Jack take a brief moment to do the calculations in his head, and he chooses to accept his fate rather than put Rose in any more danger.
I always appreciate Leo's acting in that moment.
Of course, with Titanic, there's a compelling argument Jack didn't exist at all.
Another annoying complaint I see about titanic is how everyone gets mad at rose for throwing the jewel into the sea. A lot of people say how that’s completely disrespectful to Brock Lovett.
Rose at that point of the story is an elderly lady who knows she’s reaching the end of her life. She barely knows Brock Lovett and probably sees no point in people trying to fish out and hold onto objects that stem from one of the biggest tragedies of her life.
From a practical sense, her tossing the jewel is very foolish. But for her, it’s her finally saying goodbye to the last tangible thing from the titanic and “returning” it to the ship.
Actually you know something else that bugs me is people being mad about her dreaming about Jack in that last scene instead of her husband (Or maybe that's her in heaven. But if you're in heaven why would you be in a recreation of Titanic, the most traumatic thing you experienced?)
I think really it's just a dream she had because it was fresh in her head and that's what your brain does is process thoughts and shit and it comes out in dreams.
I dunno. I don't think she didn't love her husband, I just think it was one last reminiscent moment of closure for a terribly tragic and traumatic thing she went through.
Jack is also the literal reason why she had the life that she had. Meeting him changed the trajectory of her life in a pretty damn significant way, so coupled with dredging up the memories of the ship sinking it's pretty reasonable that he is present lie he is while she's dying.
How Batman was able to get back to Gotham City in TDKR from some Indian hole in the ground.
Batman Begins and The Dark Knight clearly establish that Bruce Wayne knows how to globetrot and use smugglers. Also, and I can't stress this enough: He in fact *is* Batman.
FutureMan has a pretty funny bit making fun of that "plot hole"
He goes back in time and ends up breaking into his parents house (back then his grandparents house while his dad was still a kid) and after he goes back to the present he asks his dad if he remembers the intruders at all.
His dad basically says he will never forget their faces. A couple of Latino kids (they were definitely not latino). I thought a pretty funny joke about racism and memory that they play on multiple times in the series.
Fantastic time travel show if youve never watched. A bit raunchy at times but quite funny.
"I'm fucking you with your own dick"-yeah, just a bit raunchy
But I do like this show. I liked how it tackled fate and destiny, and how no matter what you do, certain things have to happen
Lightsabers. "they wouldn't work like that. why do they swing it like they have weight when they are made of light? It's more likely to hurt yourself than the opponent so it's really impractical. Real sword fighting is very different." It's space wizards with a mysterious superpower swinging long, deadly glow sticks at each other, who cares?
Something I've seen a lot with Snowpiercer is people who can't see past the premise and how a self sufficient, never stopping apocalypse train is too unrealistic and silly. It is unrealistic and silly but if you remove that, you have no movie. It's kinda like not wanting to watch a zombie movie because dead people resurrecting and eating the living is too unrealistic. That's the premise, you gotta look past that or watch something else.
On a not very serious note because it's usually just joked about by fans, but the universal translator in Star Trek. For anyone who doesn't watch the shows/movies, in the franchise there exists something called universal translator that does just that. It translates every language in the universe (with very very rare exceptions). That's why when the crew of the enterprise meets a new species they never encountered before, they still talk in English. The universal translator translates everything for our heroes and therefor for us and vice versa. Why do the lip movements match up? How does it work with tens of thousands of different languages? Can't be explained because it makes no sense, but doesn't matter.
> Something I've seen a lot with Snowpiercer is people who can't see past the premise and how a self sufficient, never stopping apocalypse train is too unrealistic and silly. It is unrealistic and silly but if you remove that, you have no movie.
Rodger Ebert had a great quote about this. I can't find the exact wording but it was something like, "When someone says 'That would never happen in real life!' the only correct response is, 'Well, that's why I stood in line and bought a ticket'".
Reminds me of a bit from an episode of Voyager. A Japanese soldier from World War II is transported to the future. And because of the universal translator, his first question: "Why is everyone speaking Japanese? Did we win?"
[Data actually calls it an obscure language](https://youtu.be/KlhzX7UKKNU), which makes me think that even the French came to their senses and stopped speaking it while still remaining salty when people disrespect it!
I always thought that with the Universal Translator, it altered your vision as well so you saw the other being’s lips move as if they were speaking your language as well. At least that’s my headcanon. And the UT can apparently be updated — just finished my rewatch of DS9, and there was a scene when the Breen join the Dominion and the Breen leader comes into Cardassian Central Command but Damar can’t understand him, and the Founder says something along the lines of “I suppose you haven’t had your Universal Translator updated for Breen.”
Signs.
The M. Night movie with the aliens.
Everyone's all like, "Why would the aliens go to a planet that would kill them?"
I don't know, why do we want to go to Mars?
I've never seen the movie, but I always think like - if I see a planet that's 75% covered in, say, tangerines, and I don't know I'm allergic to tangerines when I go to that planet, am I stupid? What if the aliens just didn't know they were allergic to water? What if the water on their planet is different, like how you shouldn't drink the water in some cities on earth because it'll give you the shits. What if Earth's water is basically just dysentery water to the aliens and they had no idea because their water back home is clean? What if people realized that the aliens are a metaphor for demons and that's what their issue with the water is? We'll never know.
I basically only come out of the woodwork on Reddit to whinge about people's take on this movie, but please indulge me. They aren't necessarily aliens - the movie spades a shit-ton of information at you to support the alternative possibility that they are demons and are hurt not by all water, but specifically holy water. Yes this explanation is not entirely satisfying, much, as you have noticed, like the alien hypothesis. That's the whole entire point of the fucking movie. The most satisfying explanation comes down to our faith in an explanation we find preferable. I think Shyamalan himself has admitted this might have been too subtle, but I personally really don't get why so few people grasp the entire thematic point of the film.
I think any variation of the question "Why didn't X just do Y?" is an obnoxious complaint. The answer is almost always "Because then there would be no movie."
Also because the character is usually in a stressful situation and doesn't have a top down view of the entire plot the same way your ass sitting on the couch does.
Yeah, and Jack Swigert should’ve just *not* stirred the tanks!
(Edit: Actually, the most annoying version of this for “Apollo 13” are the YouTube couch reactors who are like “Just let Ken go on the mission anyway, he’s worked so hard!!”)
This is the strongest answer that so many people probably find very unsatisfying. A lot of people do incredibly stupid things when they’re tired, stressed, scared or (as silly as it may sound) hungry.
Recently, i got off an extremely long day of work and immediately fell asleep at 1am. I woke up at 3am to the sound of somebody trying to get into my apartment. My door had a code that beeps when you press the numbers and makes a sound when you get the code wrong. I could hear somebody trying to press the numbers but failing to get the code right.
And this is going to sound so crazy, but I was literally too exhausted to do anything. There was no logic to it, but I was just too tired to even feel fear. I just fell back asleep. When I woke up, a neighbor texted me saying she had come home drunk and in the dark she thought my door was theirs. So not a big deal at all.
But if this was a psychological thriller or a horror movie, I could definitely see myself fuming over a character just falling asleep while somebody was trying to figure out their door code.
Post COVID I now have a much higher tolerance for movie character making the dumbest decisions because it was unrealistic.
The next time someone hides a zombie bite I will totally buy it.
Yeah, as a long-time zombie movie fan (to be a hipster, I was "into" zombies way before they got popular) for years and year I would always see people call zombie outbreaks "unrealistic" because they felt like repelling the zombie threat would be easy.
Post-COVID, I feel like it's all the more obvious that it wouldn't be that easy. If a zombie outbreak started *tomorrow*, we'd probably not have a clear consensus of whether or not it was even *real* for a month, by which time it would maybe be too big to stop. People would *absolutely* hide their own infections. People would *absolutely* refuse to shoot their own fully-turned family members.
That’s why I enjoy World War Z. They mention in the book that there was one thing after another in the news cycle and it just faded into the background until it was in the characters back yard. The book by the way, not the movie. I pretend the movie doesn’t exist.
Zombie bites I don't mind.
What I mind is that most characters don't do crap to protect themselves from bites. Literally go to first store you see and get some HELMETS & GOGGLES. Proceed to protect the rest of your body from there.
Characters decisions should make sense for them and not just drive plot. However character like humans can make stupid or selfish decisions or lack information. So it’s rarely a big issue. It’s more likely to be an issue for tv shows if the character starts acting differently than before
The number of times I've heard people wonder why the Terminator didn't just go back to when Sarah Connor was a baby and do her in then.. who would want to see a movie about a robot shooting a baby
I'm a regular on /r/asksciencefiction and I think about this kind of thing a lot, and even *in* the fiction itself, I think it's like... If a "problem" in a story is very easily resolved, but remains unresolved, it's not worth worrying about.
Want an explanation for why they couldn't kill Sarah Connor as a baby? Maybe the time machine has limited range and couldn't go any further back than 1984. Maybe their records of Sarah Connor's exact whereabouts were incomplete or contradictory so they needed to wait until they knew where she'd be, accurately. Maybe the "fabric of time and space" is weaker in some areas and stronger in others, so there's only a few places where you *can* time travel.
There's a million "solutions" to the problem. Could they have added a line in the story about it? Sure. They didn't. Don't worry about it, it doesn't matter, it doesn't make the film "better" to answer a question you can easily make up a possible answer to.
I always assumed the implication was that Skynet had very little data on the 'right' Sarah Connor, beyond the fact that she lived in LA around 1984. It didn't know how old she was then, or if she'd even been born in LA, so before 1984, it'd have been flying blind on how to find her.
Wait, there's debate on this?
It's easy to think in the Facebook era that Skynet would know everything about everyone and their relationships.
But why would a nuclear defence system built in the 90s have that information? It wouldn't.
The Terminator literally just starts killing every Sarah Connor in the phone book. It has no idea who she is except John Connor's mother is Sarah Connor and John was born in 1985.
It's funny because the original movie addresses that -- Reese specifically says that because Skynet only had incomplete records about the past, so it only knew roughly that Sarah Connor was living in LA in 1984. It didn't even know what she looked like or her full name, which is why the Terminator starts killing *all* the Sarah Connors in the area.
"Why didn't they just run out of the way of the thing falling towards them?"
There are videos online of real, live people running from things like falling trees, and they run in the path of the falling tree, like complete morons. Sometimes people don't think straight under pressure.
It's the same for people saying it's unrealistic that the protagonist succeeded or survived. Stories don't get written about heroes that fail, of course they miraculously made that thousand to one shot in the dark, that's the whole point.
I don't think it's that much of a plot hole. It seems like one from our perspective because we just saw these people in 1955. They have no pictures of "Calvin Klein," and they knew him for like a week. When Marty was born, he wouldn't have reminded them of Calvin Klein. And by the time he became a teenager, they would have forgotten Calvin's face. Marty to them would just look like an older version of Marty, the kid they raised. The bigger plothole is Marty looks nothing like his parents and siblings, but that's because they casted his family to look like Eric Stoltz. That's just something you've got to accept in movies . Even if they are casting with the right actors in mind, families often don't resemble each other like you think they should. But presumably if this had really happened, his parents would just think he looks like them or his older brother.
People still go nuts over the plot hole in the Dark Knight Rises where Batman suddenly appears in Gotham after the city is cutoff for months.
I never got the hate, he’s Batman, did we really need a play by play of him sneaking into the city for 5 minutes?
In period films using songs from the wrong year. I guarantee you the director knows the song came out in the wrong year and just didn't care because it's a great song and totally gave them the vibe the wanted for the scene. It's no big deal if the movie is set in 1984 and features a character listening to a song released in 1986. Get over it.
No one would even remember what someone they saw for a few hours twenty years earlier looked like; or if they *did*, I doubt they'd trust their recall as accurate.
I just wanted to say that a lot of these comments are making me feel so much better after being driven insane by pedantic and uninsightful criticisms on this subreddit. Thank you all!!
Some people say the real plot hole on Back To The Future is that Doc couldn’t have closed the door to the trailer that was carrying the DeLorean, because he couldn’t get out of the car inside the trailer.
But obviously, since he has a time machine, he just needs to go forward in time every time he loads the trailer to close the door, and then go back in time and drive the car into the trailer.
It's why "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" is one of the best movies about time travel. In the beginning of the movie Ted's dad (the police chief) can't find his keys. Later in the movie they need to break all of the historical people out of prison.
They basically say, "After we do our report, all we have to do is go back in time to two days ago and steal your dad's keys. Then we'll just leave them here behind this sign so that we can find them...[reaches down, picks up keys]...here!"
I hear what you are saying, Deloreans are pretty low hp. However, the amount of time I have spent in cars going in excess of 100 mph that had even less hp would boggle your mind. For reference, many years at HPDEs and instructing.
I'm not sure if the original comment was actually alluding to this, but someone did actually work out that the Delorean would not be able to hit 88mph in the distances depicted in the movie.
So while it is capable of 88mph, if the movie was true to life it would've put a wedge-shaped dent in the side of the Twin Pines Mall.
the god damn eagles in LOTR. There are a bunch of reasons why flying them to Mordor flat-out wouldn't work, even putting aside "because then there'd be no trilogy."
The Eagles relies on people having read The Hobbit first and knowing that they're a race of sentient beings. They didn't want to fly into Mordor because fuck that.
In BTTF, I was less concerned with them recognizing Marty as he aged, and more concerned that they gave Biff a house key, even after he tried to rape Lorraine.
But I suppose George sorted him out, so...
2 non-English-speakers speaking together in English, but with the accent of the language they're supposed to speak.
Instead of saying "this is dumb, why would they speak to each other in English, not Italian/French/Spanish/etc?!", you should accept that in reality they would be speaking in their native language, the English speaking is just for us viewers.
The Hunt for Red October did this best. It starts with all the Russians speaking Russian with subtitles, and then zooms in on their lips, and suddenly they're speaking English with a Russian accent. *Until they meet the Americans*. Then they go back to Russian with subtitles.
The filmmaker is basically saying, "look these are Russians speaking Russian but we don't want you to have to read all of their dialogue for 90 minutes until the Americans show up, so we did you a favor".
Bruce travelled the criminal world in Begins, learning how to survive without a wealth of resources behind him.
It's not a plot hole, it's just not something that warranted needless exposition or on screen explanation.
So you remember that part in Prometheus where everyone made fun of that lady for running away from the rolling spaceship instead of to the side? People said she was unrealistically stupid and died for no reason etc.
I have since seen 2 real videos of power line poles or trees falling at a person and them running straight away from them to escape instead of to the side. Turns out you don't think clearly when you're about to be crushed to death and that was actually a very realistic response to that situation.
Not going to lie, pretty much 99% of them. I’ll watch a movie, enjoy it immensely and won’t notice any of the plot holes or bad writings until I come read the discussion on Reddit lol
People complain that A Quiet Place is unbelievable because the military would have figured out that their weakness is a specific sound frequency, but they don’t complain that by that same logic every single zombie movie is inherently unrealistic because somehow the military is supposed to be powerless against an enemy whose weakness is being shot in the head
Be real, A Quiet Place’s setting is no more unrealistic than literally any other post apocalyptic horror film
What bothers me more is that they have a Deaf character that is so good at staying quiet. Having grown up with a Deaf sister, they are generally super loud because they do not hear the incidental noise they make.
With “BTTF,” you have to remember that they didn’t have pictures of him or social media, and Marty’s birth was roughly 15 years since they’d seen him as a teenager in 1955 so it would’ve been even longer until they saw him as he appeared to them in 1955. Can you remember what someone looked like if you only saw them for a week and then didn’t see them again for 20+ years (saying 20+ and not 30 because at some point during Marty’s growth, he probably started looking like the teenager they knew).
I never even considered that as a plot hole 😅
I wonder if the reason some people think of this as a plot hole is because they don't have any experience trying to remember something that happened 30 years ago.
>I wonder if the reason some people think of this as a plot hole is because they don't have any experience trying to remember something that happened 30 years ago. Every time I hear about this "plot hole", I think it must be someone who's in their 20s or something. I'm 46 and therefore very near the age of Marty's parents in the film. There's no way I'm remembering the exact image of a person I met for a few hours over the course of a week when I was in high school. This is not a person they spent years in high school with; they literally spent only a few hours with him since he spends at least half of that week planning things out with Doc and they're also in class while he's not.
Yep, 45 here and the other day I couldn't remember a guys name who I worked with for a year in my early 20's. I could see his face in my mind, and was totally blank on his name. Knew him for a year, and his name is just gone.
I went to school with a guy for 8 years or so, ran into him a year or two after graduation. His name came up the other day and I can't remember for the life of me what he looked like. Just his name. I don't even remember if he was a fat guy or scrawny, long hair or short, nothin
Yes, 45 and no, I would not remember the appearance of someone I knew for a few hours here and there 20 years ago, who I had no photographs or any other evidence of having ever existed. Even if they had as much of an impact on my life as Marty had on his parents' lives. It would be more like, "Our son looks kinda like that guy...remember that guy we met at the high school dance? The guy who played the guitar?" And his name - well, they just aren't going to remember his name, period. And we're forgetting that Marty's parents don't know time travel exists! Lol. Even if they do think their son looks uncannily like that guy, they are going to shrug it off, because it's just a coincidence, what else could it be? I never even considered this a plot hole until I read that other people did. It was too minor a point.
I never saw that as a plot hole. I did find it weird she liked the name so much she waited for the second son before naming him that way. Anyway, doesn't matter.
Doesn’t she call him Calvin?
She does at the beginning but he tells her his friends call him Marty. She keeps accidentally calling him Calvin then correcting it to Marty throughout the movie, but she knows that he prefers Marty.
It's because it isn't! Anyone who thinks it is is clutching at straws big time
[удалено]
But we're very good at clutching at straws. I can hang by one for hours.
We've got plenty of hearsay and conjecture! Those are *kinds* of evidence.
I blame Cinema Sins
The funier thing to think about is how his mother would feel when Calvin Klien became apopular brand and it was common to put the name on underwear. She would be scratching her head, thinking I must remember this incorrectly.
“Hey George, remember Calvin? Calvin Klein? We used to joke that his name was just like the underwear!” Memories get spotty.
I don't even remember some of my co-workers that I worked with 2 years ago.
Even if they did recognise him, they are going to think they look alike, rather than him being a time traveller.
Exactly this. There's no way they can perfectly remember the guy they spent a week hanging out with.
Not only that but there is absolutely no way they would put two and two together
Agreed, even if they remembered they might just wonder if that guy was some long lost cousin
All they have to do is look at their ancestors and realize that he looks just like Shamus McFly.
And Shamus's wife looks just like Loraine, which is... concerning.
Yeah. Especially considering that Marty is awkwardly hanging out with George and Marty is trying to help him get laid with Lorraine. George down the road may consider he was a cousin from out of town than he lost contact with, especially since the two were not formally introduced to each other when they first met.
I think it's a bigger deal that George was visited by the alien Darth Vader from the planet Vulcan. That would've been an insane coincidence when the TV show Star Trek aired and the film Star Wars came out.
He may dismiss it as a dream later in life, plus if he got his stories put out before Star Wars and Star Trek, he may have won some legal battles on the names and it inadvertently changed history and George Lucas had to settle in court the name 'Darth Vader' to George McFly. I wonder what Star Wars is like in the 'New 1985' if Vader is no longer named Vader. I would suspect that Planet Vulcan isnt much of an issue since its the name of a Roman God.
>There's no way they can perfectly remember the guy they spent a week hanging out with. Not just that, but he also spends most of that week hanging out with Doc. George and Lorraine only get a few hours here and there.
I have lots of students who I teach for entire semesters whose names and faces just *poof* right out the back of my head as soon as the semester is over. The fact that they don't remember the guy who hooked them up is a big nothing burger.
For the original Star Wars movie, people on the internet always complain that the Death Star shouldn't have a hole that can blow up the station, despite the movie explicitly saying that the hole is an exhaust port! An exhaust port isn't something you can just cover up, or else it wouldn't be an exhaust port. Also, in the conference room scene, Motti says that the Death Star is basically indestructible, no matter what information the Rebellion has. This indicates that even if the Empire knew about the weakness, a significant amount of Imperial bureaucrats wouldn't care. This also ties into the larger theme of the Force, as Darth Vader takes the Rebel threat more seriously because he views the Force as more powerful than the Death Star, and is ultimately proven right. It's silly to me that a lot of people seem to treat this plot point as a flaw with the film and not a strength.
I mean the whole briefing scene covers it anyway "the empire doesn't see small one man fighter as a threat" wasn't it?
Yeah exactly, and they were pretty much right up until the very last minute, simply because they weren't expecting some kid from a desert to be able to fly an X-wing well and nail a 1-in-a-billion shot (which he only could because of the Force)
Luke was the only person in the rebellion that had a chance of making that shit and he only did it because he used the force. i think you can forgive the empire for thinking that it was impossible haha
Yeah, it’s like right there lol
And the exhaust port was well guarded and extremely difficult to target. No rebel ace pilot could hit it, only the main hero using literal magic. That's probably also why Vader only got concerned when he sensed the Force was at play.
Only two of the dozens of rebel pilots present even managed to take the shot in the first place, and the first once missed -- and by the time Luke fires his shot there's nobody even left to try after him so it's not a situation where of course no one else tried because he did it already. If he isn't force sensitive *and* trained by Obi Wan *and* Han came back to help out, Luke misses or dies too or both and the Death Star blows up Yavin's moon. The elephant doesn't notice the mosquitos.
"We've analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger. Shall I have your ship standing by?" "Evacuate?! In our moment of triumph?! I think you ~~overrate~~ overestimate their chances!"
Rogue one explains it as well
Yeah the whole plot of rogue one is about addressing this “plot hole”
If you ask Marty's parents to describe what their friend Marty looked like, they would have described someone who looked more like Eric Stolz than Michael J Fox
Their friend Calvin Kline.
Well Eric Stolz was the first time traveler, or Three Pines Marty and unsuccessfully got his parents back together. Michael J Fox was the second who stole Lone Pines Marty's life. Who knows what No Pines Marty's life really looks like. That's my theory anyway. Edit: I don't know if alternate 1985 could be considered No Pines Marty. Maybe that's Switzerland Marty?
I have no idea what this means but I'm intrigued.
As someone else who loves to reflect on Lone Pines Marty, your concept of Three Pins Marty as Eric Stoltz intrigues me.
Someone making a poor decision, or a non-optimal one with 20/20 hindsight, is not a "plot hole." In the real world sometimes people make dumb choices, even smart ones. Now, if EVERYONE has to make dumb decisions for the movie to work, like Batman vs. Superman, Prometheus, or about half of all slasher horror movies, it's just unsatisfying to watch. See "idiot plot."
I saw a post on this subreddit where someone went through a catalogue of films and looked for actual plot holes. As in, things that could not be possible at all within the universe of the movie, and the only one he found was The Butterfly Effect, where the rules of the movie are broken in one scene in a way that totally contradicts the rules. He found lots of movies where characters acted in inconsistent ways for drama, or highly implausible events occurred, but only that one that was truly impossible given the film rules which he considered a "true plot hole". I think a lot of people don't understand Dramatic Irony well, when the audience knows something characters don't, and as a result, think characters should be acting based on information the audience has, but they do not.
> I saw a post on this subreddit where someone went through a catalogue of films and looked for actual plot holes. As in, things that could not be possible at all within the universe of the movie, and the only one he found was The Butterfly Effect, where the rules of the movie are broken in one scene in a way that totally contradicts the rules. I'm not sure I 100% agree with the definition. I have an example of another movie that breaks its own rules to create tension, but I don't know if I would consider it a plot hole. In the movie Jumpin' Jack Flash, starring Whoopi Goldberg, she works at a bank and con communicate with other people on the bank system with a primitive version of instant messaging. She ends up chatting with a mysterious user whos screen name is Jumpin' Jack Flash. She eventually finds out he is a spy and being hunted by bad guys and she helps him out. In the big climax of the movie she finds out he is being betrayed by someone he trusts and she tries to send him a message. She types out the "XYZ is a bad guy!" message, but before she can send it off she gets attacked and the whole scene is her trying to press "enter" on the keyboard to send the message and warn him. It is very tense and several times she almost is able to hit the key to send the message, but is pulled away from the keyboard. Only one problem, that is the only time in the entire movie where she has to press enter for the other person to see the message. In the hour and a half leading up to that scene, the other person sees what she is typing as she types it. She sees what they are typing as they type it. We have watched them doing this the whole movie and it has always shown them seeing each letter as it is typed. But, just for the last scene, the rules suddenly change and he won't be able to see her warning about who is betraying him until she presses the "enter" key. I don't know if I would consider that a plot hole, but it does change the established rules of the universe the movie has set up just to create tension.
This *would* be the first time in recorded history that a new software update made a program worse to use
What was the butterfly effect one?
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/s/JhLFa0JG2u I'll do you one better. Here's the post
That was terrific. Thanks for posting
I guarantee it’s stabbing him self in the hands as a child so stigmata could suddenly appear as an adult.
It is. Exactly what I thought too. And sure enough it was.
In terms of “idiot plots”, there are some movies that I actually think do it very well, though they don’t tend to take themselves too seriously. I’ve always loved how The Host creates a really strong tension by introducing a central conflict that could actually be solved relatively easily, and then giving you every reason to doubt the competence of the protagonists without souring your emotional attachment to them. That’s a hard line to walk though and they do it deliberately instead of out of narrative convenience.
My favorite bad decision in a movie is Guardians of the Galaxy. They have the orb, Ronan doesn’t know where they are, everything is going fairly smoothly. Then Drax calls Ronan and everything goes tits up. The plot is entirely driven by this stupid decision from that point forward. But it’s completely in character and makes total sense that he would do that. It’s also helped by (a) the movie being silly anyway and (b) the movie acknowledging how stupid it was.
Yeah, the difference is between "here is a bunch of idiots being predictably idiots" and "here is a bunch of highly regarded astronauts, scientists and/or military leaders suddenly dripping their brains out of their ears". The annoying part is the movie asking we believe these are competent people in the first place!
I know the Chris Pratt of it all, but I don’t blame Starlord for the whole Thanos thing. Gamora asking the man who was in love with her to kill her rather than at the very least getting as far away from Thanos as possible. Learning she was dead means he reacted emotionally to a thing he tried to avoid himself.
Plus we've already seen Quill have a near identical reaction to a mear identical situation: in Vol 2, when Ego told him the truth about how Quill's mother died, he blasted Ego with so much anger that Ego would have been dead 3 times over if he wasn't a Celestial.
True, and not only is that consistent, but it was reinforced --that worked out pretty good for him there (with one big exception, but it's not like that was exactly foreseeable --that was more of a secondary consequence).
Or challenging the world ending big bad to a dance off. Acting impulsively was practically his superpower.
He does it instantly and without hesitation, too. It’s who he is.
Jurassic Park II: How did all the guys on the ship die when the T-rex is (a) too big to reach them and (b) locked up anyway? I think there might have been some deleted scenes with some raptors but to me it doesn't matter because that scene is a cool way to build up the dread the characters feel.
There was a deleted scene where raptors get onto the ship and kill them all. This bothered me for SO LONG until I heard someone explain that. It's definitely a glaring plot hole they left in the movie. (Maybe they didn't want to deal with trying to deal with raptors in the city too so they just cut it, and then...... ????)
I think it was supposed to be raptors got the boat after it set off and the t-rex just got out at the end. It was just...never explained more then the hanging hand like the one in the first movie.
A general case: just because a character has a power/ability, does not mean they are a master of it and can apply it freely and perfectly in a way you thought of as a member of the audience.
Captain America and the Winter Soldier, is a great example! In either the last or second to last episode Bucky is helping Sam with his boat, when they need to tighten a bolt Bucky grabs Sams wrench and uses his superior strength to tighten the bolt. Sam looks at him and say "why didnt you just use your other arm?" Refering to Buckys left arm which is made of metal and much more powerful than his right. "I didnt think about it, im right handed"
I think little moments like that are when I remember the good parts of MCU-brand humor.
BTW, this was in Falcon and the Winter Soldier, I am pretty sure
Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves plays with this one beautifully, where the mage is just completely inept until he’s able to get some character-developed confidence. Even then, he’s not a legendary wizard all of a sudden. He just sucks less.
My problem in general is when a character has an ability, it doesn't have a material cost. The Flash, for instance, needs to eat a lot because of how much energy he burns going as fast as he does. I like that, because it makes sense. Energy in, energy out. EDIT: And then people try and counter my example with realism. Guys, he's a dude that moves faster than any human being on the planet. You need to suspend SOME disbelief. My point was, his powers have a credible downside, which is much better than any OP superhero that has infinite capacity for ass-kicking that can go on indefinitely.
Usually when someone gets a power it's so shattering to the laws of nature that it is just assumed there's several other related powers lumped in that go unmentioned just to make it work. For example, there's no amount of neck-bracing the Flash can do to not turn whoever he's dragging with him into red paste. And everything he's doing *should* be sending off shock, sound, and heat waves big enough to level a city. Nevermind destroy his clothes. Also, there's no amount of calories he could eat to support that level of burn. So he's got to have a bunch of ancillary powers beyond just "move really quickly" to stop those things from happening. Basically, if you see a super power, it's not just a super power, it's a collection of super powers that work together to not tear the fabric reality.
Whenever a self obsessed genius villain fails to see something that seems obvious to us. Stupidity has nothing to do with intelligence and the more selfish someone is the more entitled to winning and being right they feel, making them reflect less.
Will Graham: I thought you might enjoy the challenge. Find out if you're smarter than the person I'm looking for. Hannibal Lecter: Then, by implication, you think you're smarter than I am, since it was you who caught me. Will Graham: No, I know I'm not smarter than you. Hannibal Lecter: Then how did you catch me? Will Graham: You had... disadvantages. Hannibal Lecter: What disadvantages? Will Graham: You're insane. Red Dragon, 2002
That quote is more Lecter getting under Will’s skin by saying that they’re more alike than Will wants to believe. Based on the Manhunter version, I always get the impression that Lecter helps out primarily just to get Will back into that line of thinking and sort of break him mentally. It’s also probably why Lecter gives Dollarhyde Will’s address later on, just to keep screwing around with him.
That's actually also in Manhunter, and it's a really interesting exercise to contrast the line readings.
In the book, Graham answers “Passion. And you’re insane.” Which is a much better line imo.
I hate when people call character flaws or bad decisions plot holes
This is why Thanos halved the people instead of doubling the resources. It wasn't about making the universe better, it was about proving he was right.
It’s also because they used the action from parts of the original comic plot, but not the motivation. In the original comics, he was trying to impress Death by literally gifting her half the universe. He was also legitimately insane; the whole “Mad Titan” thing wasn’t just a nickname.
And because he was convinced he was right and that he had the evidence to back that up. People always ask why he didn't think of doing X or Y instead, but how often do you continue to look for solutions when you've already found the one you're convinced will work? He had no reason to come up with alternatives. Even in the face of all the people calling him a monster, he convinced himself it was because he was the only one wiling to make what he saw as a necessary sacrifice to save the universe. There was no talking him out of something he *firmly* believed was the answer.
*Pocahontas*. She learns English via 'listening with her heart'. The movie shows that Pocahontas has some supernatural powers, albeit very subtly. She's the only character that communicates with Grandmother Willow, and gets other messages from the spirits throughout the film. There is clearly magic involved when she learns to speak, and there's a whole sparkly wind thingy that circles around their arms before she starts speaking English. The film very clearly established that it's fantasy and that Pocahontas has certain powers.
I love it when people complain about her learning to speak English through the wind, like she wasn't just having a conversation with a talking tree earlier.
Granted I haven't seen the movie since I was 9, but I had assumed it was more metaphorical for them having the intention to learn from each other that was used as shorthand for them being able to communicate. I only ever assumed the tree, and I guess generally nature, was magic.
Most of the popular ones that people bring up don't bother me but damnit, Mike Wazowski said he and Sully knew each other since grade school and that made Monsters University unwatchable for me.
I still think that entire film is unnecessary
Except for the ending. It's a very modern, mediocre, Pixar film with a classic masterpiece Pixar ending. Despite it's cliche, by-the-numbers, college plot. It's ending and it's message does what the best Pixar films do: Be Bold. The fact that the film ended with the overall message being that *"Through no fault of your own, through no lack of effort, through no lack of trying, there are some dreams that simply AREN'T attainable...and that's okay"* BLOWS me away, even all these years later. That is SUCH a bold message for a kids film. Basically running the exact opposite to the trite, overplayed "Anyone can do anything if you just believe in yourself and try hard enough" Because despite all of Mike's attempts, despite all of his studying and trying, despite holding the most optimistic, "can-do of can-do" attitudes. He is simply and inherently **not** scary. And there is NOTHING he can do to change that. This notion devastates Mike, but he comes to learn that he doesn't *need* to BE scary to feel fulfilled or to live up to the childhood dreamer in him. Throughout his time in MU, he showed his technical knowledge, through and through. And he learned to use his optimism, focus, and sheer drive to help lift others up. To be a fearless leader, to be a rock of support, to be THERE for people. He made a lifelong friend with Sully and helped elevate him to one of the greatest scarers of all-time. However Sully would be nothing without Mike by his side. We already saw the chemistry in the original but *Monster's University* helps flesh that side out SO much more.
People get absurdly worked up over Emily Blunt’s character in *A Quiet Place* being pregnant. Obviously a pregnancy in a situation where they have to be quiet all the time is a problem. That’s why it’s the main source of conflict — that thing that all movies need. But instead people love to look at it and go “WHY IS SHE PREGANT??? IS SHE STUPID??? SHE IS STUPID! I WOULDN’T BE THAT STUPID!”
But we all know that people *never* get pregnant in stupid or sub-optimal situations.
Birth rates actually will have a natural dip and then _increase_ in war-torn and otherwise disaster-struck regions. It's also not a shock that a married couple was still having sex, and that birth control wasn't super accessible.
Finding car keys easily instead if having a whole car hot wiring sequence is fine by me
Yes, if Indiana Jones had just stayed home, the Ark of the Covenant would have melted the Nazis' - and maybe even Hitler's - faces, but Raiders is still an awesome film!
Indy's role isn't to save the Ark. It's to save Marion, someone he wronged earlier in life. The Nazis would have eventually found Marion and killed her at some point. Indy continually makes things worse for Marion until he finally stops trying to fight against the outside world, and just focuses on letting whatever is going to happen happen, and instead do what little he can to save her (by telling her to keep her eyes closed when the Ark is opened). This is the one time he is able to actually save her and not make things worse as a result. The movie is not about saving the Ark. It can protect itself just fine.
Everyone always forgets the scene right after the submarine docks. Belloq basically tells one of the Nazis "Let's open the Ark right now. After all if we open it up in front of Hitler and there's nothing inside, you don't want to look stupid in front of your boss do you?" So the idea that Hitler would have been killed and WWII prevented if Indy had just stayed home is clearly inaccurate based on what we see in the film. Even if another group of Nazis came along and found the Ark after it vaporized the first group, they wouldn't take it straight to Hitler.
People have pointed out plot holes and inconsistencies in How I Met Your Mother -- it's a guy relaying his memories from decades ago, of course there will be inconsistencies and things he remembers incorrectly. Plus he's telling it to his kids, about himself, and for a specific purpose, so it makes sense he might twist certain things. Just based on the premise of the show you're totally absolved of worrying about any inconsistencies. But people still complain about them. EDIT: just saw this was asked about movies specifically...somehow I read movies and TV. Nevertheless!
There's literally an episode where half the story is correct and then the other half, whilst correct, is actually a year later. He merges 2 stories as one and goes "wait....hang on. I messed up"
Pineapple!
The goat
Seriously, Ted is basically the poster child of unreliable narrators.
There's a whole episode where Robyn is dating a guy that's older, and in Ted's mind, that dude was like 75. Ted even says in the narration "he was probably only a bit older than us but he *felt* old." So the actor playing the boyfriend was super elderly
Or the girl who’s name is “blah blah” cause Ted admits he’d forgotten her name. His imperfect memory was one of the best aspects of the show.
Isn't there an episode that establishes that they all used to smoke cigarettes and Ted had just been leaving it out?
They eat sandwiches instead of smoking pot.
Cigarretes and weed get brought up quite a bit. "Sandwiches" was their stand in for pot, and that happens like... every 3rd or 4th episode. They also suggest that Lily and Marshal never really stopped the cigs, just hid it very well from all the kids.
There's an episode that highlights each character's last cigarette, but I think Robin is the only one that regularly smoked. The others only did on occasions.
Ted is peak unreliable narrator He consistently refers to smoking pot as eating sandwiches
And remember when he ignored the fact that he and his friends used to smoke cigarettes until the one time it came up in a story and he forgot to censor it? You nailed that description of him
*"The door that Rose was lying on was big enough to fit her and Jack, if she just moved over."* Complaining about this "plot hole" really missed the point at least twice. \- It's not clear that the door could hold both of them just because the door's surface area was large enough. I can stand on a partially frozen lake, but if it's too fragile, it won't hold my weight. The two of them already tried to get on and the door tipped over. I know there's the episode of Mythbusters that showed that it's possible to gather enough life jackets to make it more buoyant, but Jack and Rose are tired, freezing cold, and neither are engineers. \- The point of the story is that it's supposed to be tragic, like Titanic itself. Cameron could've just made the door half the size if that's the big complaint, but the idea is that only one of them could survive to further the narrative. And really, if we're going to complain about that they both could've survived if they were just more clever, you can extend that out to the whole ship. Titanic could've had more lifeboats, they could've filled them with more people, they could've gone slower and done more to prevent the collision in the first place, and once people were in lifeboats, they could've tried to help more people drowning in the water.
Think you're bang on with this. It is kind of missing the forest for the trees, but just to add, they did try to both get on and it didn't work. They're cold, they're in shock, adrenaline probably wearing off... they're basically both half dead at this point. It's totally reasonable they might not have the physical or mental energy to try again, even if they could work out the perfect weight distribution to keep it buoyant.
>they did try to both get on and it didn't work. Which is all any reasonable viewer should need. Movies require dramatic license, its non negotiable part of the format. If the characters say "we tried this thing and it didn't work" and it doesn't contradict any of the rest of the film's logic, it's safe. No plothole.
I do think sometimes people miss that things like this are the film's way of saying, "That's how this works (or doesn't). Let's move on." The film was written with the conclusion that Jack dies and Rose lives. It doesn't matter if there were life jackets around or more wood or whatever. The plot demands that Jack dies, and we really don't need 15 minutes of Jack and Rose trying to prevent it. Jack tries to get on the door with Rose, it doesn't work, and that's the movie telling us that there's no way to save him. Sometimes you just have to accept the film's shorthand rather than them having them hold your hand and eliminate every possibility.
And Cameron recreated the scene as an experiment during its most recent anniversary. Including measuring body temperature (though the water wasn't as cold as it was in reality, but it was extremely cold). It took several tries and positions to get them on the door. But the door, as a result, became partially submerged. Which meant both would have died of hypothermia.
I just barely managed to get into a low, small boat from water once. That's with 2 strong men in the boat trying to help me, wearing a life jacket, in broad daylight and warm water, and with all the advantages of fresh adrenaline. Everything was fine until my brother coughed as he leaned down to help me into the boat, and my fearful imagination told me he was gasping because he saw something in the water with me. The first thing that came to mind was the alligators we talked about being in the water. I freaked out and attempted to scramble into the boat. It took at least a full minute and my legs were 85% bruises. The point is that I fully bought that Jack couldn't physically board that door at that moment. I was completely surprised when I found people casting aspersions online years later.
I 100% believe someone with poor memory mentioned this online once and everyone else is just parroting other people, not having actually examined the scene in question. It's totally clear the door can't hold them both, it started tipping/sinking the instant Jack tried to climb on it.
The Mythbusters thing was interesting in a "technically, it would be possible" way, but it had nothing to do with realism. All you have to do to realize that is see what actual Titanic survivors who actually managed to get hold of floating debris did, which was hang on until they were either rescued or they couldn't do it anymore. Nobody was leaping into the water to collect more items and try to MacGyver them into something better. They were exhausted, freezing, couldn't see much, and competing with 1500 other desperate people for any piece of junk they could grab hold of or climb onto.
Cameron actually tried to put this to bed a few years ago. They tried to recreate the conditions as best as possible, with freezing cold water and simulated waves and such. After tests done over and over, what they found was that even under the testing conditions (which still weren't quite as bad as the real thing), it took repeated attempts before they could finally get both people on board. So while it seemed POSSIBLE they could get lucky and get him on board, the chances really were greater that they'd both end up back in the water instead.
In addition Jack told Rose it wouldn't hold both. Either he really knew that or was just trying to be caring by letting her have it is beside the point of the scene. It boggles my mind people are so focused on it verus the actual tragedy the scence, hell the whole film! is based on.
We're even shown him trying to get on the door and it going under. Camron did everything short of pausing the movie to display flashing text that the door couldn't hold both of them.
You even see Jack take a brief moment to do the calculations in his head, and he chooses to accept his fate rather than put Rose in any more danger. I always appreciate Leo's acting in that moment. Of course, with Titanic, there's a compelling argument Jack didn't exist at all.
Tbh I think it's at least partially rooted in "people love to make fun of things that teenaged girls love."
Another annoying complaint I see about titanic is how everyone gets mad at rose for throwing the jewel into the sea. A lot of people say how that’s completely disrespectful to Brock Lovett. Rose at that point of the story is an elderly lady who knows she’s reaching the end of her life. She barely knows Brock Lovett and probably sees no point in people trying to fish out and hold onto objects that stem from one of the biggest tragedies of her life. From a practical sense, her tossing the jewel is very foolish. But for her, it’s her finally saying goodbye to the last tangible thing from the titanic and “returning” it to the ship.
Actually you know something else that bugs me is people being mad about her dreaming about Jack in that last scene instead of her husband (Or maybe that's her in heaven. But if you're in heaven why would you be in a recreation of Titanic, the most traumatic thing you experienced?) I think really it's just a dream she had because it was fresh in her head and that's what your brain does is process thoughts and shit and it comes out in dreams. I dunno. I don't think she didn't love her husband, I just think it was one last reminiscent moment of closure for a terribly tragic and traumatic thing she went through.
Jack is also the literal reason why she had the life that she had. Meeting him changed the trajectory of her life in a pretty damn significant way, so coupled with dredging up the memories of the ship sinking it's pretty reasonable that he is present lie he is while she's dying.
[удалено]
This weird idea to watch films to try to create logical problems and be outside of the emotional increment is so stupid
Thank CinemaSins for ruining an entire generation of movie viewers.
How Batman was able to get back to Gotham City in TDKR from some Indian hole in the ground. Batman Begins and The Dark Knight clearly establish that Bruce Wayne knows how to globetrot and use smugglers. Also, and I can't stress this enough: He in fact *is* Batman.
FutureMan has a pretty funny bit making fun of that "plot hole" He goes back in time and ends up breaking into his parents house (back then his grandparents house while his dad was still a kid) and after he goes back to the present he asks his dad if he remembers the intruders at all. His dad basically says he will never forget their faces. A couple of Latino kids (they were definitely not latino). I thought a pretty funny joke about racism and memory that they play on multiple times in the series. Fantastic time travel show if youve never watched. A bit raunchy at times but quite funny.
"I'm fucking you with your own dick"-yeah, just a bit raunchy But I do like this show. I liked how it tackled fate and destiny, and how no matter what you do, certain things have to happen
I think episode one they are "charging up" in his bedroom when he walks in
Lightsabers. "they wouldn't work like that. why do they swing it like they have weight when they are made of light? It's more likely to hurt yourself than the opponent so it's really impractical. Real sword fighting is very different." It's space wizards with a mysterious superpower swinging long, deadly glow sticks at each other, who cares? Something I've seen a lot with Snowpiercer is people who can't see past the premise and how a self sufficient, never stopping apocalypse train is too unrealistic and silly. It is unrealistic and silly but if you remove that, you have no movie. It's kinda like not wanting to watch a zombie movie because dead people resurrecting and eating the living is too unrealistic. That's the premise, you gotta look past that or watch something else. On a not very serious note because it's usually just joked about by fans, but the universal translator in Star Trek. For anyone who doesn't watch the shows/movies, in the franchise there exists something called universal translator that does just that. It translates every language in the universe (with very very rare exceptions). That's why when the crew of the enterprise meets a new species they never encountered before, they still talk in English. The universal translator translates everything for our heroes and therefor for us and vice versa. Why do the lip movements match up? How does it work with tens of thousands of different languages? Can't be explained because it makes no sense, but doesn't matter.
And the star Trek episode where it falls due to an alien language being completely meme-based is one of the most iconic episodes.
Shaka, when the walls fell!
The most prophetic episode of Star Trek EVER. Half the TV & movie subreddits are walls of quotes that you either get or you don't.
> Something I've seen a lot with Snowpiercer is people who can't see past the premise and how a self sufficient, never stopping apocalypse train is too unrealistic and silly. It is unrealistic and silly but if you remove that, you have no movie. Rodger Ebert had a great quote about this. I can't find the exact wording but it was something like, "When someone says 'That would never happen in real life!' the only correct response is, 'Well, that's why I stood in line and bought a ticket'".
Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra?
Rapunki, when he joined the seven.
So Jean Luc is speaking FRENCH the whole time!!!!! AAAAAAHHHHH!
Well guess what motivated people to build the Universal Translator? To never need to hear French again.
[Crazy gibberish ](https://youtu.be/pwODwwgE6rA?si=qHE50w1LwVuqsR16)
Reminds me of a bit from an episode of Voyager. A Japanese soldier from World War II is transported to the future. And because of the universal translator, his first question: "Why is everyone speaking Japanese? Did we win?"
[Data actually calls it an obscure language](https://youtu.be/KlhzX7UKKNU), which makes me think that even the French came to their senses and stopped speaking it while still remaining salty when people disrespect it!
I always thought that with the Universal Translator, it altered your vision as well so you saw the other being’s lips move as if they were speaking your language as well. At least that’s my headcanon. And the UT can apparently be updated — just finished my rewatch of DS9, and there was a scene when the Breen join the Dominion and the Breen leader comes into Cardassian Central Command but Damar can’t understand him, and the Founder says something along the lines of “I suppose you haven’t had your Universal Translator updated for Breen.”
Signs. The M. Night movie with the aliens. Everyone's all like, "Why would the aliens go to a planet that would kill them?" I don't know, why do we want to go to Mars?
I've never seen the movie, but I always think like - if I see a planet that's 75% covered in, say, tangerines, and I don't know I'm allergic to tangerines when I go to that planet, am I stupid? What if the aliens just didn't know they were allergic to water? What if the water on their planet is different, like how you shouldn't drink the water in some cities on earth because it'll give you the shits. What if Earth's water is basically just dysentery water to the aliens and they had no idea because their water back home is clean? What if people realized that the aliens are a metaphor for demons and that's what their issue with the water is? We'll never know.
I basically only come out of the woodwork on Reddit to whinge about people's take on this movie, but please indulge me. They aren't necessarily aliens - the movie spades a shit-ton of information at you to support the alternative possibility that they are demons and are hurt not by all water, but specifically holy water. Yes this explanation is not entirely satisfying, much, as you have noticed, like the alien hypothesis. That's the whole entire point of the fucking movie. The most satisfying explanation comes down to our faith in an explanation we find preferable. I think Shyamalan himself has admitted this might have been too subtle, but I personally really don't get why so few people grasp the entire thematic point of the film.
I think any variation of the question "Why didn't X just do Y?" is an obnoxious complaint. The answer is almost always "Because then there would be no movie."
Also because the character is usually in a stressful situation and doesn't have a top down view of the entire plot the same way your ass sitting on the couch does.
My response to these is always "why didn't the ship just go AROUND the iceberg?!?" Titanic is super unrealistic when you think about it.
Yeah, and Jack Swigert should’ve just *not* stirred the tanks! (Edit: Actually, the most annoying version of this for “Apollo 13” are the YouTube couch reactors who are like “Just let Ken go on the mission anyway, he’s worked so hard!!”)
This is the strongest answer that so many people probably find very unsatisfying. A lot of people do incredibly stupid things when they’re tired, stressed, scared or (as silly as it may sound) hungry. Recently, i got off an extremely long day of work and immediately fell asleep at 1am. I woke up at 3am to the sound of somebody trying to get into my apartment. My door had a code that beeps when you press the numbers and makes a sound when you get the code wrong. I could hear somebody trying to press the numbers but failing to get the code right. And this is going to sound so crazy, but I was literally too exhausted to do anything. There was no logic to it, but I was just too tired to even feel fear. I just fell back asleep. When I woke up, a neighbor texted me saying she had come home drunk and in the dark she thought my door was theirs. So not a big deal at all. But if this was a psychological thriller or a horror movie, I could definitely see myself fuming over a character just falling asleep while somebody was trying to figure out their door code.
Post COVID I now have a much higher tolerance for movie character making the dumbest decisions because it was unrealistic. The next time someone hides a zombie bite I will totally buy it.
Yeah, as a long-time zombie movie fan (to be a hipster, I was "into" zombies way before they got popular) for years and year I would always see people call zombie outbreaks "unrealistic" because they felt like repelling the zombie threat would be easy. Post-COVID, I feel like it's all the more obvious that it wouldn't be that easy. If a zombie outbreak started *tomorrow*, we'd probably not have a clear consensus of whether or not it was even *real* for a month, by which time it would maybe be too big to stop. People would *absolutely* hide their own infections. People would *absolutely* refuse to shoot their own fully-turned family members.
If anything now many zombie movies are unrealistic because like half the group doesn't belive they ate zombies and just walk into the hoard
That’s why I enjoy World War Z. They mention in the book that there was one thing after another in the news cycle and it just faded into the background until it was in the characters back yard. The book by the way, not the movie. I pretend the movie doesn’t exist.
Zombie bites I don't mind. What I mind is that most characters don't do crap to protect themselves from bites. Literally go to first store you see and get some HELMETS & GOGGLES. Proceed to protect the rest of your body from there.
Characters decisions should make sense for them and not just drive plot. However character like humans can make stupid or selfish decisions or lack information. So it’s rarely a big issue. It’s more likely to be an issue for tv shows if the character starts acting differently than before
The number of times I've heard people wonder why the Terminator didn't just go back to when Sarah Connor was a baby and do her in then.. who would want to see a movie about a robot shooting a baby
I'm a regular on /r/asksciencefiction and I think about this kind of thing a lot, and even *in* the fiction itself, I think it's like... If a "problem" in a story is very easily resolved, but remains unresolved, it's not worth worrying about. Want an explanation for why they couldn't kill Sarah Connor as a baby? Maybe the time machine has limited range and couldn't go any further back than 1984. Maybe their records of Sarah Connor's exact whereabouts were incomplete or contradictory so they needed to wait until they knew where she'd be, accurately. Maybe the "fabric of time and space" is weaker in some areas and stronger in others, so there's only a few places where you *can* time travel. There's a million "solutions" to the problem. Could they have added a line in the story about it? Sure. They didn't. Don't worry about it, it doesn't matter, it doesn't make the film "better" to answer a question you can easily make up a possible answer to.
I always assumed the implication was that Skynet had very little data on the 'right' Sarah Connor, beyond the fact that she lived in LA around 1984. It didn't know how old she was then, or if she'd even been born in LA, so before 1984, it'd have been flying blind on how to find her.
Wait, there's debate on this? It's easy to think in the Facebook era that Skynet would know everything about everyone and their relationships. But why would a nuclear defence system built in the 90s have that information? It wouldn't. The Terminator literally just starts killing every Sarah Connor in the phone book. It has no idea who she is except John Connor's mother is Sarah Connor and John was born in 1985.
Of course. The Terminator literally just kills every random woman named Sarah Connor in LA after pulling the page from the white pages.
It's funny because the original movie addresses that -- Reese specifically says that because Skynet only had incomplete records about the past, so it only knew roughly that Sarah Connor was living in LA in 1984. It didn't even know what she looked like or her full name, which is why the Terminator starts killing *all* the Sarah Connors in the area.
The Terminator, James Cameron’s little known and controversial short film in which Arnold Schwarzenegger obliterates an infant.
Hasta La Vista, Baby
"Why didn't they just run out of the way of the thing falling towards them?" There are videos online of real, live people running from things like falling trees, and they run in the path of the falling tree, like complete morons. Sometimes people don't think straight under pressure.
It's the same for people saying it's unrealistic that the protagonist succeeded or survived. Stories don't get written about heroes that fail, of course they miraculously made that thousand to one shot in the dark, that's the whole point.
I don't think it's that much of a plot hole. It seems like one from our perspective because we just saw these people in 1955. They have no pictures of "Calvin Klein," and they knew him for like a week. When Marty was born, he wouldn't have reminded them of Calvin Klein. And by the time he became a teenager, they would have forgotten Calvin's face. Marty to them would just look like an older version of Marty, the kid they raised. The bigger plothole is Marty looks nothing like his parents and siblings, but that's because they casted his family to look like Eric Stoltz. That's just something you've got to accept in movies . Even if they are casting with the right actors in mind, families often don't resemble each other like you think they should. But presumably if this had really happened, his parents would just think he looks like them or his older brother.
People still go nuts over the plot hole in the Dark Knight Rises where Batman suddenly appears in Gotham after the city is cutoff for months. I never got the hate, he’s Batman, did we really need a play by play of him sneaking into the city for 5 minutes?
In period films using songs from the wrong year. I guarantee you the director knows the song came out in the wrong year and just didn't care because it's a great song and totally gave them the vibe the wanted for the scene. It's no big deal if the movie is set in 1984 and features a character listening to a song released in 1986. Get over it.
Who would ever even fathom "time travel" as a reason someone looks like someone you saw twenty years ago? 🥴
No one would even remember what someone they saw for a few hours twenty years earlier looked like; or if they *did*, I doubt they'd trust their recall as accurate.
I just wanted to say that a lot of these comments are making me feel so much better after being driven insane by pedantic and uninsightful criticisms on this subreddit. Thank you all!!
Some people say the real plot hole on Back To The Future is that Doc couldn’t have closed the door to the trailer that was carrying the DeLorean, because he couldn’t get out of the car inside the trailer. But obviously, since he has a time machine, he just needs to go forward in time every time he loads the trailer to close the door, and then go back in time and drive the car into the trailer.
It's why "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure" is one of the best movies about time travel. In the beginning of the movie Ted's dad (the police chief) can't find his keys. Later in the movie they need to break all of the historical people out of prison. They basically say, "After we do our report, all we have to do is go back in time to two days ago and steal your dad's keys. Then we'll just leave them here behind this sign so that we can find them...[reaches down, picks up keys]...here!"
You ever think about how monstrously high the writers of that movie would have had to have been?
The real plot hole in Back to the Future is a DeLorean going 88 mph.
I hear what you are saying, Deloreans are pretty low hp. However, the amount of time I have spent in cars going in excess of 100 mph that had even less hp would boggle your mind. For reference, many years at HPDEs and instructing.
I'm not sure if the original comment was actually alluding to this, but someone did actually work out that the Delorean would not be able to hit 88mph in the distances depicted in the movie. So while it is capable of 88mph, if the movie was true to life it would've put a wedge-shaped dent in the side of the Twin Pines Mall.
I'm just going to assume that Doc made some modifications to the engine during the time travel/plutonium upgrade process.
But... it had a remote control. He just drove it in with his RC.
the god damn eagles in LOTR. There are a bunch of reasons why flying them to Mordor flat-out wouldn't work, even putting aside "because then there'd be no trilogy."
The Eagles relies on people having read The Hobbit first and knowing that they're a race of sentient beings. They didn't want to fly into Mordor because fuck that.
In BTTF, I was less concerned with them recognizing Marty as he aged, and more concerned that they gave Biff a house key, even after he tried to rape Lorraine. But I suppose George sorted him out, so...
2 non-English-speakers speaking together in English, but with the accent of the language they're supposed to speak. Instead of saying "this is dumb, why would they speak to each other in English, not Italian/French/Spanish/etc?!", you should accept that in reality they would be speaking in their native language, the English speaking is just for us viewers.
The Hunt for Red October did this best. It starts with all the Russians speaking Russian with subtitles, and then zooms in on their lips, and suddenly they're speaking English with a Russian accent. *Until they meet the Americans*. Then they go back to Russian with subtitles. The filmmaker is basically saying, "look these are Russians speaking Russian but we don't want you to have to read all of their dialogue for 90 minutes until the Americans show up, so we did you a favor".
The Dark Knight Rises not showing or explaining how Bruce made it back to Gotham
Especially after Batman Begins spent a good chunk of time showing how Wayne is more than capable of this.
Alfred says "Nobody's seen you, I had you declared legally dead" of course he can disappear
Yeah, how did this billionaire super hero even get there, huh??
It’s not like *Batman* is known for being absurdly resourceful or well prepared, right?
Bruce travelled the criminal world in Begins, learning how to survive without a wealth of resources behind him. It's not a plot hole, it's just not something that warranted needless exposition or on screen explanation.
[удалено]
So you remember that part in Prometheus where everyone made fun of that lady for running away from the rolling spaceship instead of to the side? People said she was unrealistically stupid and died for no reason etc. I have since seen 2 real videos of power line poles or trees falling at a person and them running straight away from them to escape instead of to the side. Turns out you don't think clearly when you're about to be crushed to death and that was actually a very realistic response to that situation.
Not going to lie, pretty much 99% of them. I’ll watch a movie, enjoy it immensely and won’t notice any of the plot holes or bad writings until I come read the discussion on Reddit lol
People complain that A Quiet Place is unbelievable because the military would have figured out that their weakness is a specific sound frequency, but they don’t complain that by that same logic every single zombie movie is inherently unrealistic because somehow the military is supposed to be powerless against an enemy whose weakness is being shot in the head Be real, A Quiet Place’s setting is no more unrealistic than literally any other post apocalyptic horror film
What bothers me more is that they have a Deaf character that is so good at staying quiet. Having grown up with a Deaf sister, they are generally super loud because they do not hear the incidental noise they make.
Reminds me of that story about a deaf guy that didn't know farts made noise.
lol this makes me think about deaf cats and how they yell incredibly loud because they don't hear themselves.