Most disliked plot holes in movies you like?

That_Guy · 28-11-2011 02:08PM

Not so much a plot hole but more of a "what the hell?" type moment.

Pirates Of The Caribbean:

http://www.moviemistakes.com/picture45366

don ramo · 28-11-2011 02:13PM

FlashD wrote: »

Nice one dude!

But I think I got a hold on this one, so yes present day Superman goes back in time to rescue Lois in the past but from this moment on Superman exists twice in the same time, .....the Superman who is already fixing all the disasters and the present day one who rescues Lois.

The past Superman disappears when he travels back in time to rescue Lois........ leaving only the present day Superman to continue on with the rescued Lois.

I watch far too many time travel films

but past superman would never have to travel back in time cause present day superman already traveled back and saved lois thus giving past superman no reason to travel back, so then we have 2 supermans

:D

Paparazzo · 28-11-2011 02:18PM

Can we have a seperate forum opened especially for mistakes in Armegeddon and Independence Day?

My favourite was the machine gun on the ship in Armegeddon.

Riddle101 · 28-11-2011 02:55PM

Scrawny71 wrote: »

^ Now that you mention it, surely the T-800 could have used his spare power source to blow the cr@p out of Sarah Connor at some point in the first movie. In T3 the same model is shown to have two extremely volatile batteries, one of which explodes pretty violently when removed.

The Terminators in T1 and T2 were T-800 Model 101. While the Terminator in T3 was a T-850 Model 101. The 850 was an advanced model from the T-800, so maybe the extrmely volatile batteries only came with the T-850. So the T-800 proberly didn't have the ability to turn his battery into a bomb.

As for the T-1000 making it through the time machine. I would proberly go with the guy who said they proberly made advancments to the machine since T1, so that the T-1000 could go through. As for why he was naked. He was only a prototype, so chances are he was activated upon leaving the future, so he proberly didn't have time to absorb a person a get clothing.

The real problem I have with Terminator 1 though is who is John Conner's real father? It really couldn't have been Kyle Reece because there's no way reece, who was born in the future and was actually younger then John, could go back in time and impregnate Sarah. He must have changed the timeline when he made love to Sarah. Which brings me to my question. Who is his original father.

This theory of Reece changing the timeline could also explain the T-1000 origin, because maybe through Reece, Conners was able to act fast and capture the T-800 who attacked in the first movie, forcing Cybernet to create a new weapons which became the T-1000, and while building it the made adjustments to the time machine.

krudler · 28-11-2011 02:57PM

Mitch Connor wrote: »

it is on the other side isn't it? The t-rex comes from the paddock on the drivers side of the jeep - they go into the chasm on the passenger side of the jeep.

but the jeep gets spun around, its definitely the same wall as it has the destroyed fence, we never actually see whats across from the paddock, all we see is the toilet Gennaro legs into. Theres an earlier wide shot during the day when they arrive at it but the road is way too wide for the jeep to wind up over there. the T-Rex come outs, attacks the jeeps flips it upside down, spins it around and nudges it over the wall on the same side the broken fence is on as Grant uses one of the cables to climb down, now unless the chasm is right beside solid ground but its just bad movie geography. still a great scene though.

speaking of JP, that scene that wrecks my head is when they're trying to hold the door closed from the raptor while Lex is trying to boot up the system again, Grant and Satler are struggling to hold the door while trying to reach the gun, Lex is busy using the pc and Tim...is jumping up and down doing sweet fook all instead of picking up the shotgun and handing it to Grant. its not really a plot hole as hey, he's a panicking kid but it still annoys the bejesus out of me :pac:

al28283 · 28-11-2011 03:02PM

In T2 the terminator says he cannot self terminate but in T3 he rips out his power cell and kills himself nad the other terminatrix. Maybe killing her overrides the cant'kill himself thing but still.

don ramo · 28-11-2011 03:03PM

Riddle101 wrote: »

The real problem I have with Terminator 1 though is who is John Conner's real father? It really couldn't have been Kyle Reece because there's no way reece, who was born in the future and was actually younger then John, could go back in time and impregnate Sarah. He must have changed the timeline when he made love to Sarah. Which brings me to my question. Who is his original father.

This theory of Reece changing the timeline could also explain the T-1000 origin, because maybe through Reece, Conners was able to act fast and capture the T-800 who attacked in the first movie, forcing Cybernet to create a new weapons which became the T-1000, and while building it the made adjustments to the time machine.

but sarah told john about his father, so john knows that when he meets someone called kyle reese that he has to send him back in time so he can impregnate hs mother, and if he doesnt do that then hell never exist,

its a loop that plays over and over, changing things slightly each time till maybe there some time when it wont happen, like what they done in T2 delayed JD for a while but JD is enevitable as long as the machines are there, and maybe at some point they wont be there, and john wont have to send reese back, therefore hell never exist, bang end of story,

but if john needs to send reese back how did he do it the first time

;)

GarH · 28-11-2011 03:57PM

Not really a plot hole as such, but why in every space movie, the spaceships engines, or laser guns or anything like that, can be heard.
My understanding is that there is no sound in a vacuum.

Dotrel · 28-11-2011 04:06PM

GarH wrote: »

Not really a plot hole as such, but why in every space movie, the spaceships engines, or laser guns or anything like that, can be heard.
My understanding is that there is no sound in a vacuum.

I would have thought the orchestral score in space would have caused you more concern?

Ellian · 28-11-2011 04:06PM

foxyboxer wrote: »

Deleted scenes explain all

If anything that just makes it worse...:)

Paparazzo · 28-11-2011 04:31PM

GarH wrote: »

Not really a plot hole as such, but why in every space movie, the spaceships engines, or laser guns or anything like that, can be heard.
My understanding is that there is no sound in a vacuum.

2001 is the exception. Think I remember reading that they were going to do the same for Alien, but they thought it was better with sound.

krudler · 28-11-2011 04:53PM

al28283 wrote: »

In T2 the terminator says he cannot self terminate but in T3 he rips out his power cell and kills himself nad the other terminatrix. Maybe killing her overrides the cant'kill himself thing but still.

that'd probably fall under the 3 laws of robotics thing, cant self harm unless it conflicts with saving a human, which it did.

pixelburp · 28-11-2011 04:53PM

GarH wrote: »

Not really a plot hole as such, but why in every space movie, the spaceships engines, or laser guns or anything like that, can be heard.
My understanding is that there is no sound in a vacuum.

Because they use Movie Physics, which is a wholllle different thread altogether

I am pie · 28-11-2011 05:00PM

Ides of March - i'm having a hard time reconciling the drastic actions of the female character with how confident she appeared in other parts of the movie. Especially since the 'incident' had been cleared up and was essentialy deniable.

Meh from me for the Ides of March.

bijapos · 28-11-2011 05:11PM

Adam and Paul: Not so much a hole in the plot but they wake up in Ballymun on the mattress, then Paul (Tom Murphy) looks around and says "where the **** are we", when they are clearly in the Dublin Mountains. They move around Dublin so quick too it was a bit disconcerting. The film was aimed at Irish audiences and most people know Dublin that well to know the scenes are all over the place. Great film though.

Bourne Identity (2nd one I think). He is in Munich, then makes a phone call from what is obviously Berlin, then he is back in Munich WTF.

The Breakfast Club: Why did the teacher never notice the damage done when Judd Nelson fell through the ceiling?

pixelburp · 28-11-2011 05:16PM

One for the list would be Minority Report - the whole movie & its premise is one big plot hole from the very get-go, and it makes my eyes water just trying to come up with a logic or explanation as to how events could have possibly started unraveling.

Average-Ro · 28-11-2011 06:12PM

Paparazzo wrote: »

2001 is the exception. Think I remember reading that they were going to do the same for Alien, but they thought it was better with sound.

And Firefly/Serenity

Average-Ro · 28-11-2011 06:24PM

don ramo wrote: »

but past superman would never have to travel back in time cause present day superman already traveled back and saved lois thus giving past superman no reason to travel back, so then we have 2 supermans :D

We don't actually:)

Superman didn't travel back in time, he reversed time. The difference is that there's always only one Superman, he controls time like a DVD, fast-forwarding or rewind AROUND him.

Average-Ro · 28-11-2011 06:25PM

FlapsOfDoom wrote: »

bridesmaids - completely uneeded sexual jokes, some were just so downright stupid it was like watching scary movie or something.

I think you're mixing up plot holes and bad writing:p

FlapsOfDoom · 28-11-2011 06:26PM

Average-Ro wrote: »

I think you're mixing up plot holes and bad writing:p

oh, sorry, my bad

Mickeroo · 28-11-2011 06:26PM

Riddle101 wrote: »

The real problem I have with Terminator 1 though is who is John Conner's real father? It really couldn't have been Kyle Reece because there's no way reece, who was born in the future and was actually younger then John, could go back in time and impregnate Sarah. He must have changed the timeline when he made love to Sarah. Which brings me to my question. Who is his original father.

This theory of Reece changing the timeline could also explain the T-1000 origin, because maybe through Reece, Conners was able to act fast and capture the T-800 who attacked in the first movie, forcing Cybernet to create a new weapons which became the T-1000, and while building it the made adjustments to the time machine.

If Conners had stopped the T-800 going back he would never have been born.

Reese starts a causal loop by going back and impregnating sarah, he's John's father. It's a chicken before the egg scenario. What you're tallking about is a paradox, if you apply that logic to just about any film with time travel they fall apart, mainly because time travel to the past is against the laws of physics as we understand them. Where time travel is involved in movies overthinking is never a good idea (unless you're talking about Primer of course) as they almost never hold up.

Edit: Also skynet only came about (or its development was greatly accelerated) because they found the arm and micro-chip of the T-800 from the first movie so that's another paradox, skynet had to send the first T-800 to ensure its own existence. As I said, time travel + overthinking not a good idea

Average-Ro · 28-11-2011 06:32PM

bnt wrote: »

Here's a kind-of plot hole in Back To The Future: what happened after Marty went "back to the future" at the end? His mother got married, and before long she had a kid who looked just like a young version of the Marty who disappeared. Wouldn't that be seen as just a little bit suspicious ..?

Think about it, they knew Marty for a week in 1955.

30 years pass by the time Marty is that age again, a lot of time for the face of someone you knew only for only a week to fade from your memory slightly.

They would have seen Marty from the day he was born, growing up into that person, his face changing.

Not the strongest argument I admit. In fact, for a trilogy about changing timelines, the Back to the Future movies did a good job of keeping the number of plotholes low.

Dotrel · 28-11-2011 06:47PM

Average-Ro wrote: »

Think about it, they knew Marty for a week in 1955.

30 years pass by the time Marty is that age again, a lot of time for the face of someone you knew only for only a week to fade from your memory slightly.

They would have seen Marty from the day he was born, growing up into that person, his face changing.

Not the strongest argument I admit. In fact, for a trilogy about changing timelines, the Back to the Future movies did a good job of keeping the number of plotholes low.

I think he means why wasn't George McFly suspicious that his youngest child looked almost exactly like some guy he and he wife used to hang out with.

Average-Ro · 28-11-2011 06:50PM

Dotrel wrote: »

I think he means why wasn't George McFly suspicious that his youngest child looked almost exactly like some guy he and he wife used to hang out with.

I know, but I'm going with the whole "they didn't really know him for that long" argument:)

krudler · 28-11-2011 07:22PM

Dotrel wrote: »

I think he means why wasn't George McFly suspicious that his youngest child looked almost exactly like some guy he and he wife used to hang out with.

for a few days, 30 years earlier. do you remember anyone you knew 10-20 years ago you met on a holiday or something? I cant remember people I spoke to last weekend :pac:

SnakePlissken · 28-11-2011 07:27PM

Another Terminator one. In the gunshop scene in the original movie, why is it that the terminator specifically requests a laser-sight? Shouldn't his own, much more advanced, targeting system be enough?

... it does look cool though.

Nervous Wreck · 28-11-2011 07:27PM

krudler wrote: »

in Jurassic Park, where does that giant drop inside the T-Rex paddock come from? it strolls out of the pen then when the jeep is being pushed over the side theres a massive chasm, it makes no sense.

I'm pretty sure Spielberg once commented on this and 'explained' it away by saying "I needed it to be a chasm."

Don't quote me on that though; I heard it a long time ago. But I'm pretty sure he just took artistic license over continuity....

Dotrel · 28-11-2011 07:29PM

krudler wrote: »

for a few days, 30 years earlier. do you remember anyone you knew 10-20 years ago you met on a holiday or something? I cant remember people I spoke to last weekend :pac:

Again I think the suggestion the earlier poster was making is (and lets for the sake of argument presume that George could remember 'Calvins' face) why wasn't George suspicious that 'his' son looked exactly like a guy that his wife was friendly with way back when.

It's not an issue of remembering faces or not. It's akin to your son being born and turning out to look more like the milkman than you. Raises all kinds of questions.

Nervous Wreck · 28-11-2011 07:44PM

Dotrel wrote: »

Again I think the suggestion the earlier poster was making is (and lets for the sake of argument presume that George could remember 'Calvins' face) why wasn't George suspicious that 'his' son looked exactly like a guy that his wife was friendly with way back when.

It's not an issue of remembering faces or not. It's akin to your son being born and turning out to look more like the milkman than you. Raises all kinds of questions.

A milkman you haven't seen in 30 years? Don't think I'd remember or be too worried.

Tipsy McSwagger · 28-11-2011 08:00PM

How does Andy put the poster back on the wall once he is inside the tunnel in The Shawshank Redemption?

Most disliked plot holes in movies you like?

Comments