Most disliked plot holes in movies you like?

Mickeroo

Dotrel wrote: »

I can't help but feel this thread would have gone a lot better if post #1 had included the definition of a plot-hole.

The definition has been posted several times now but it hasn't made a difference at all.

johnny_ultimate

snafuk35 wrote: »

Are you for real?:eek:

Ok then. We will agree to differ.

No, I don't think that agreement is to anyone's benefit. And I'm as big an M. Night detractor as you'll find.

Any film can be picked apart if you're cynical enough. Jurassic Park - dinosaurs come back alive through nonsense pseudo-science, it doesn't make any sense! The Truman Show - no TV station would get that much money, give me a break! Heck, Romeo and Juliet - wouldn't Romeo have just checked her pulse or something?

But these complaints are entirely missing the point of storytelling, and if you're not willing to thoughtfully suspend disbelief, you'll find yourself with remarkably little cinema to enjoy.

*tempted to lock this increasingly pointless thread*

Sad Professor

Dotrel wrote: »

I can't help but feel this thread would have gone a lot better if post #1 had included the definition of a plot-hole.

The problem is a lot of people don't even know what a plot is, nevermind a plot hole. It's a pet hate of mine. I'm always hearing friends complain that film x had no plot or the plot was crap, when most of the time there was nothing wrong with the plot, it was the story, characters, sucky writing/directing that was the problem. It's easier for people to just blame everything on "the plot".

And in this thread many people are taking my and others attempts to clarify what a plot hole is as a defense of the films in question, which isn't the case.

ziedth

Ok I have one (Spoilers for the usual suspects below):

We are shown in the films twist that Verbal made up the majority of the story not in his police statement from looking at the wall in the office.

we all know the great scene where we learn that he came up with the name Kobayashi from the bottom of the detectives cup.

Now, (I'm working off memory so names escape me) a good bit into the film the detective is talking to another Cop and they something to the effect of Gabriel Byrne's girlfriend is working on a case and you won't believe the name of the lawyer helping her? "Kobayashi" being the answer.

Obviously this doesn't make sense because Verbal just made up the whole story to amuse himself or whatever and I don't buy that it's a coincidence.

Granted, its been a while since I have seen the film so I could be totally off with my interpretation of it and I'll happily put my hands up and admit I'm wrong as it one of my fav all time films.

GAAman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

*tempted to lock this increasingly pointless thread*

Nah leave it open this thread some potential, instead maybe just ban sixth sense posts as not only has it been done to death......again and again, it is just creating a big roundabout

kollegeknight

wobbles wrote: »

One that gets me every time i watch Lord of the Rings is why didnt the eagles just carry Frodo to Mount Doom instead of having to walk through Mordor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU

Riddle101

If you ask me, they should have listened to Boromir's plan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EWfllJ6kNw

Mellor

snafuk35 wrote: »

So how would such a brilliant psychiatrist not have noticed?
I mean he remembers how to conduct psychotherapy or whatever but he doesn't notice that he hasn't taken a pooh in months or shaved or washed his clothes or whatever. He uses a tape recorder but he doesn't go to bed or make coffee or collect his mail? For goodness sake! How dumb does Shyamalan takes use for?

First of all, your are debating the logic of a ghosts self awareness. A ghost!
Secondly I don't think you understand what is happen, he isn't just sitting around 24 hours a day doing nothing. He only exists in those random moments we see. As far as he is concerned, he does do those things, he just isn't doing them right now.

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

Right, this isn't really a plot hole but just a little thing that seems blatantly obviously wrong.

Inglourious Basterds:
Right before Donny Donowitz beats Sgt. Rachtman (F%ck you, and your jew dogs) to death with a baseball bat, Aldo Raine is questioning him right? And Aldo Raine, says something like "well i can presume you know who we are" and the Sgt. agrees and when Aldo Raine points out Hugo Stiglitz, the sergeant responds "Everybody in the german army knows who Hugo Stiglitz is" right?

Now, when the British/Americans are meeting Von Hammersmark in the tavern, Major Hellstrom 'intrudes' right? He questions Lt. Hicox (the guy who gives himself away with the 3-finger thing) about who he his, Hellstrom clearly states "I know everyone there is to know stationed in France"

He says this, while he is sitting literally two feet away from Hugo Stiglitz!?

I repeat, and quote
"Everybody in the German Army knows who Hugo Stiglitz is" - Sgt. Rachtman

"I know everyone there is to know..." - Major Hellstrom sitting beside Stiglitz.


I mean, come on!!! They made it so clear!?!

When he says he knows everyone there is to know stationed in France, he is refering to german soldiers, as the two are pretending to be Germans. Hugo Stiglitz is an american soldier.

Also the above also applies knowing of somebody, and knowing what they look like is a different thing. Especially in the 1940s.

ziedth wrote: »

Now, (I'm working off memory so names escape me) a good bit into the film the detective is talking to another Cop and they something to the effect of Gabriel Byrne's girlfriend is working on a case and you won't believe the name of the lawyer helping her? "Kobayashi" being the answer.

Was the girlfriend working with Kobayashi not part of the "story" Verbal made up?

ziedth

Mellor wrote: »

Was the girlfriend working with Kobayashi not part of the "story" Verbal made up?

Yes, there is a scene with Kobayashi and the girlfriend as a part of Verbals story but the scene I mention is a conversation between the two cops outside the interview room. I'll really have to watch it again.

hawesome145

amtw wrote: »

The one that bugs me is that Will Smith's girlfriend in Independence Day just happens to be the person who discovers the presidents injured wife and they both end up being reunited with their partners. Come on this is supposed to be a serious film but that plot hole really makes it unbelievable!

Not so much a plot hole as a stupid scene but even worse is when Will is out on the lawn and picks up the paper and sees the spaceship in the sky in front of him. The girlfriend runs out to him on the lawn with a pot of coffee and says 'hey hun you want some of this coffee?' before spotting the ship and dropping the coffee. Who runs out to their partner on the lawn with a pot of coffee when they're gona come back in? Great plot device to get her out on the lawn, bravo!

phil1nj

Mellor wrote: »

When he says he knows everyone there is to know stationed in France, he is refering to german soldiers, as the two are pretending to be Germans. Hugo Stiglitz is an american soldier.

Have to pull you up on that, Hugo Stiglitz was originally an enlisted German soldier who killed 13 Gestapo officers. He was sentenced to death but was liberated by the Basterds and joined them on their mission (to kill more Nazis).

Mickeroo

phil1nj wrote: »

Have to pull you up on that, Hugo Stiglitz was originally an enlisted German soldier who killed 13 Gestapo officers. He was sentenced to death but was liberated by the Basterds and joined them on their mission (to kill more Nazis).

I think he means that Stiglitz is working for the americans so he is not a German soldier stationed in France.

hawesome145

More a stupid plot device, but in Superman 2 where did he acquire the power to pull the logo off his chest like a giant sweet wrapper and throw it at the bad guys, thus wrapping around them and helping him defeat them? Never got that.

And on Indiana Jones forgive me I only saw it once and never want to see it again but why is it not mentioned in the Crystal Skull that Indy is supposedly immortal following the ending of the Last Crusade when him and ol pappy greedily drink from Christs Chalice and dont give Marcus or the other guy (John Rhys Davies) any? Thought that was supposed to give everlasting life!

Sad Professor

Indy forfeited immortality when the grail was taken beyond the seal. The old knight warned him about this.

mr lee

in shrek there is no way the dragons wings are big enough to achieve flight.

hawesome145

Sad Professor wrote: »

Indy forfeited immortality when the grail was taken beyond the seal. The old knight warned him about this.

Ah I see, need to see it again. I would happily have stayed there if I could have banged that blonde for all eternity though....

Dotrel

Not to mention it shows in Crystal Skulls that his "immortal" father had died.

Should that not have had you thinking you may have missed something along the way there?

phil1nj

hawesome145 wrote: »

More a stupid plot device, but in Superman 2 where did he acquire the power to pull the logo off his chest like a giant sweet wrapper and throw it at the bad guys, thus wrapping around them and helping him defeat them? Never got that.

Someone explained this to me before; when Superman bailed out of the fight with the three Supervillians in Metropolis, he headed straight back back to the Fortress of Solitude and set to work on the various traps we see in the film (the logo trap and the hologram one). The idea being that he knew he needed time to set these up to even out the odds ( 3 on 1 being a tad unfair). There are not part if his superpowers as such.

phil1nj

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think he means that Stiglitz is working for the americans so he is not a German soldier stationed in France.

I kind of figured that but my take on this scene was that the German major was just toying with the Basterds (possibly he knew who they were from early on but just needed first-hand proof of their deception, which he got when Michael Fassbender's character screwed up). I would put his claim about knowing every German stationed in France as being just an idle boast. New soldiers/officers could potentially be arriving daily in occupied France so some new faces were bound to appear. He probably knew of Hugo Stiglitz beforehand but may not have known what he looked like. Wouldn't classify this as a plot hole though.

LittleBook

In The Matrix you need an Operator to get in/out of the Matrix (maybe not "in" but definitely "out").

So when Cypher has dinner with the Agents and plots to destroy the team, how does he get back out of the Matrix?

mikhail

LittleBook wrote: »

In The Matrix you need an Operator to get in/out of the Matrix (maybe not "in" but definitely "out").

So when Cypher has dinner with the Agents and plots to destroy the team, how does he get back out of the Matrix?

You need an operator to 'call' a particular phone for you. It seems plausible that you could arrange an automated phone call at a particular time and place. Working for the agents, he would have no fear of not making it.

It's just that, in general, with the potential that agents could catch them at any time, they need the flexibility of an operator to 'call' any exit at any time.

I'd speculate that you could even automate the process, so they could call a number and remotely act as an operator from within the matrix, but you would lose the use of the operator as provider of intelligence, and probably the people of Zion would be a bit leery of allowing remote access to their equipment.

Films, particularly science fiction and fantasy films, are full of little leaps of logic like this. Otherwise, they'd be full of exposition, explaining how every little thing works in unnecessary detail. When there's a leap like this, but there are potential explanations, you just have to accept that there are just things you haven't been told yet. A plot hole occurs if there's a later scene or sequel where someone's alone on a ship and claims it's impossible to enter the matrix in that situation. Even then, you could argue that by "impossible", they meant 'ridiculously dangerous', a common and perfectly reasonbable exaggeration.

Mickeroo

hawesome145 wrote: »

Ah I see, need to see it again. I would happily have stayed there if I could have banged that blonde for all eternity though....

You still can dude, she's from Dublin.

allaboutclicks

Zombies. They are completely brainless yet the only way to destroy them is by shooting them in the head.

Still I love them zombies I do.

al28283

allaboutclicks wrote: »

Zombies. They are completely brainless yet the only way to destroy them is by shooting them in the head.

Still I love them zombies I do.

:rolleyes: That's you saying they're are brainless. Not the plot of any movie

Mellor

"Brainless", in that sense, does not mean that you don't have a brain controling your motor functions

LittleBook

mikhail wrote: »

Films, particularly science fiction and fantasy films, are full of little leaps of logic like this. When there's a leap like this, but there are potential explanations, you just have to accept that there are just things you haven't been told yet.

Of course! And The Matrix is full of them, little and large. This one is irritating to me since it's made abundantly clear that it takes a lot of effort to get in and out of the Matrix, except in this instance.

And it wouldn't have taken a huge amount of exposition to explain a deviation from what was, to me, such an essential part of the workings of that world.

You require a specific negation for this to be considered a plot hole, whereas the glaring inconsistency is enough for me.

Thanks for the potential explanations, I'm sticking with "they messed up"

The King of Moo

Another one in Batman Begins: The nerve toxin was in the water supply for weeks before it was released by the water being vapourised.

I can suspend disbelief about the microwave emitter not vapourising the water in people's bodies, and not eventually spreading and vapourising all of the city's water supply regardless of where the actual emitter was.

But wouldn't anyone who boiled their kettle have released the toxin, at least in their kitchen?

Maybe there was a spate of mysterious incidents of people going crazy in their kitchens that wasn't mentioned in the film .


And while I find the plot of The Dark Knight a bit implausible in the number of contingencies that seem to be involved in the Joker's plan, I also don't mind that either.

But the one thing that seems completely illogical and bugged me straight away happens at the beginning of the film.

The Joker escapes the bank robbery in the schoolbus that joins the fleet of schoolbuses passing by. I can buy the fact that the Joker knew they'd be there due to some big school event (I don't think he arranged to have them there as I think you can hear kids' voices on the soundtrack).

But on this busy street, how did nobody seem to notice a schoolbus driving through the wall of a major bank, then coming back out a few minutes later?

Surely the kids, or especially the driver, on the bus behind the Joker's one at least noticed something.

For me, that's the thing that makes the least sense in the whole film.

krudler

The King of Moo wrote: »

Another one in Batman Begins: The nerve toxin was in the water supply for weeks before it was released by the water being vapourised.

I can suspend disbelief about the microwave emitter not vapourising the water in people's bodies, and not eventually spreading and vapourising all of the city's water supply regardless of where the actual emitter was.

But wouldn't anyone who boiled their kettle have released the toxin, at least in their kitchen?

Maybe there was a spate of mysterious incidents of people going crazy in their kitchens that wasn't mentioned in the film .


And while I find the plot of The Dark Knight a bit implausible in the number of contingencies that seem to be involved in the Joker's plan, I also don't mind that either.

But the one thing that seems completely illogical and bugged me straight away happens at the beginning of the film.

The Joker escapes the bank robbery in the schoolbus that joins the fleet of schoolbuses passing by. I can buy the fact that the Joker knew they'd be there due to some big school event (I don't think he arranged to have them there as I think you can hear kids' voices on the soundtrack).

But on this busy street, how did nobody seem to notice a schoolbus driving through the wall of a major bank, then coming back out a few minutes later?

Surely the kids, or especially the driver, on the bus behind the Joker's one at least noticed something.

For me, that's the thing that makes the least sense in the whole film.

that annoys me too, it just ploughs out of a wall in broad daylight on a busy street, with bits of rubble and dust all over it, and iirc another bus behind it allows to join the convoy? wtf? "ah theres Jims bus emerging from that bank, with no kids on it and clearly having just barged through a wall, in you go there"

the Joker's who "do I like a guy with a plan?" thing irks as well, when in fact yes he does considering he has elaborate schemes and bombs set up all over the city and gets Gotham evacuated, this isnt something you just come up with on the spot.

Sad Professor

krudler wrote: »

the Joker's who "do I like a guy with a plan?" thing irks as well, when in fact yes he does considering he has elaborate schemes and bombs set up all over the city and gets Gotham evacuated, this isnt something you just come up with on the spot.

Yeah, but you have to put that line in context. He says it when trying to push Harvey over the edge. But even so, there's a big difference between a short-term and long-term plan. Like Michael Mann said about John Dillinger, he could plan robberies in the most meticulous detail and yet he couldn't plan next Tuesday. Dillinger was only living for today and that's why he got caught. It's kinda the same with the Joker.

jpm4

The King of Moo wrote: »

And while I find the plot of The Dark Knight a bit implausible in the number of contingencies that seem to be involved in the Joker's plan, I also don't mind that either.

But the one thing that seems completely illogical and bugged me straight away happens at the beginning of the film.

The Joker escapes the bank robbery in the schoolbus that joins the fleet of schoolbuses passing by. I can buy the fact that the Joker knew they'd be there due to some big school event (I don't think he arranged to have them there as I think you can hear kids' voices on the soundtrack).

But on this busy street, how did nobody seem to notice a schoolbus driving through the wall of a major bank, then coming back out a few minutes later?

Surely the kids, or especially the driver, on the bus behind the Joker's one at least noticed something.

For me, that's the thing that makes the least sense in the whole film.

Like a lot of things in the film it doesn't make much sense expect maybe it makes the film a little cooler looking (see how neatly the joker pulled that heist off??). That's fine with me except for the legions of fan boys insisting that every detail makes complete sense in itself!

indough

cringe

ImpossibleDuck

Mickeroo wrote: »

He said they know who he is, not what he looks like.

Mmmmm I suppose, good point. But you get where I'm coming from? It seemed unnecessary to me to point it out to that extent?

And (I can't help myself, sorry) am I not right in saying Stiglitz was on the front page of that newspaper?
Clearly he would have been wanted by the German army, considering they were so keen for him 'to be made an example of'? One would assume, given his notoriety, that another German soldier (who clearly states that he has a knowledge of German soldiers) maybe might recognise him? Considering that Hellstrom was also, definitely suspicious to begin with: Dodgy accent, abruptly telling him to leave, rather oddly having a drink with Bridget Von Hammersmark in a quiet tavern (which it is said not to normally house German soldiers).

No? :pac:

Mammanabammana

Another Back to the Future one...

At the end of BTTF2, when Marty gets the letter, the Doc explicitly tells him not to go back to 1885. Instead, he tells him to go to the 1955 Doc and he'll be able to reconstruct the time machine. Now; if the Doc REALLY didn't want Marty to go back to 1885, why didn't he write the 1885 letter to be delivered, NOT to Marty, but to himself in 1955, giving himself in enough time to rebuild the buried time machine before meeting Marty on the road after the DeLorean is blasted back to 1885, bring Marty to the rebuilt time machine and make sure Marty was returned to 1985? While he was at it, since he had been in the old west for 8 months before he wrote the letter and had PLENTY of time to work out the logistics of all this, he could have written another letter to the 1985 Doc (or the 1955 Doc could have written that letter) telling him where and when Marty would arrive in 1985 and detailing everything that had happened, so the Doc could meet Marty and destroy the time machine once and for all. He'd already proven (the Doc) that despite his concerns about messing with timelines, he has no problem communicating events to himself in different time zones.


Actually, why not just write a letter to his 1955 self telling him to never invent a time machine at all to begin with because of the chaos that will ensue...but then of course, if he does that then there'll never be a time machine and the Doc will never end up in 1885 so how would the letter get written etc etc...my head hurts...

Dotrel

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Actually, why not just write a letter to his 1955 self telling him to never invent a time machine at all to begin with because of the chaos that will ensue...but then of course, if he does that then there'll never be a time machine and the Doc will never end up in 1885 so how would the letter get written etc etc...my head hurts...

Plus he doesn't listen to his own advice anyway. He told Marty not to tell him of his future because it could cause change x,y,z but then went ahead and read the letter anyway. :pac:

Mickeroo

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

Mmmmm I suppose, good point. But you get where I'm coming from? It seemed unnecessary to me to point it out to that extent?

And (I can't help myself, sorry) am I not right in saying Stiglitz was on the front page of that newspaper?
Clearly he would have been wanted by the German army, considering they were so keen for him 'to be made an example of'? One would assume, given his notoriety, that another German soldier (who clearly states that he has a knowledge of German soldiers) maybe might recognise him? Considering that Hellstrom was also, definitely suspicious to begin with: Dodgy accent, abruptly telling him to leave, rather oddly having a drink with Bridget Von Hammersmark in a quiet tavern (which it is said not to normally house German soldiers).

No? :pac:

Been a long time since I watched it, but if Stiglitz's face was on the newspaper then yeah, I would have thought he'd have known him in that case.

Mellor

ImpossibleDuck wrote: »

And (I can't help myself, sorry) am I not right in saying Stiglitz was on the front page of that newspaper?
Clearly he would have been wanted by the German army, considering they were so keen for him 'to be made an example of'? One would assume, given his notoriety, that another German soldier (who clearly states that he has a knowledge of German soldiers) maybe might recognise him?

If it happened last week then yeah of course. But it happened months, if not years ago. I wouldn't assume he'd instantly recognaise a face he seen once or twice in the paper.
Maybe it mgiht of been an interesting element if he refered to it after they were outed, or after his name was revealed. But I wouldn't consider it impossible that he didn't look over and scream "Zee Bear Jue, Zee Bear Jue"

syklops

Mammanabammana wrote: »

Another Back to the Future one...

At the end of BTTF2, when Marty gets the letter, the Doc explicitly tells him not to go back to 1885. Instead, he tells him to go to the 1955 Doc and he'll be able to reconstruct the time machine. Now; if the Doc REALLY didn't want Marty to go back to 1885, why didn't he write the 1885 letter to be delivered, NOT to Marty, but to himself in 1955, giving himself in enough time to rebuild the buried time machine before meeting Marty on the road after the DeLorean is blasted back to 1885, bring Marty to the rebuilt time machine and make sure Marty was returned to 1985? While he was at it, since he had been in the old west for 8 months before he wrote the letter and had PLENTY of time to work out the logistics of all this, he could have written another letter to the 1985 Doc (or the 1955 Doc could have written that letter) telling him where and when Marty would arrive in 1985 and detailing everything that had happened, so the Doc could meet Marty and destroy the time machine once and for all. He'd already proven (the Doc) that despite his concerns about messing with timelines, he has no problem communicating events to himself in different time zones.


Actually, why not just write a letter to his 1955 self telling him to never invent a time machine at all to begin with because of the chaos that will ensue...but then of course, if he does that then there'll never be a time machine and the Doc will never end up in 1885 so how would the letter get written etc etc...my head hurts..

/me takes deep breathe.

At the start of BTTF Part one we are introduced to a zany but cool scientist guy who has been working very hard for the past thirty years on a project to make time travel possible. After the events of BTTF Part 1 and 2, the Doc has had his fill of adventure and is happy to 'retire' to the old west and start courting Clara. But his 1955 self was kind of a boring guy leading a little life building inventions that don't work. The 1885 Doc knew if he had sent his 1955 self a letter telling all about the time machine and this inter-century adventure he and his cohort from the future were on, saying, PS, don't invent the time machine, or bad things might happen, he knew full well that his 1955 self would go ahead and make the TIme Machine.

It would be like getting a postcard from your best friend from Thailand saying last night he had a threesome with 2 Asian hotties, but you shouldn't come because he might have caught the clap. You would definitely go, wouldnt you?

Frank Black

syklops wrote: »

It would be like getting a postcard from your best friend from Thailand saying last night he had a threesome with 2 Asian hotties, but you shouldn't come because he might have caught the clap. You would definitely go, wouldnt you?

No, I'm married with 2 kids and besides I'd never get the time off work.

It would be a major plot hole in the movie of my life.

oxygen

the end of Source Code did not add up

So he successfully completely prevents the train from being destroyed. So he doesn’t automatically zip back to the office where his body is. He sends a text to the lady in the office to say Source Code works better than they could have imagined and he was actually able to completely prevent the destruction of the train, not just catch the terrorist.

But a couple of things...

They must have known at some point, that they were actually sending him back in time. Why not try to prevent the destruction of the train all along? I know the prevention of the destruction of the train invalidates any results for source code, since nothing ever appears to happen, but I can’t imagine they would be so results driven that they would knowingly massacre a train full of people.

Also, at the end, that is the new altered time line. But Jake Gyllenhaal continues to inhabit the character Sean’s body. He has no regard for the fact that he has presumably killed Sean. And he doesn’t ever say to Michelle Monaghan that he is not Sean. He doesn’t seem to have any intention of saying anything to her either. He will just go on in Sean’s body, having sex with Sean’s girlfriend and teaching a class full of children that he has no qualification to teach. He doesn’t seem like that despicable a character at the start of the movie.

Mr Freeze

oxygen_temp wrote: »

Also, at the end, that is the new altered time line. But Jake Gyllenhaal continues to inhabit the character Sean’s body. He has no regard for the fact that he has presumably killed Sean. And he doesn’t ever say to Michelle Monaghan that he is not Sean. He doesn’t seem to have any intention of saying anything to her either. He will just go on in Sean’s body, having sex with Sean’s girlfriend and teaching a class full of children that he has no qualification to teach. He doesn’t seem like that despicable a character at the start of the movie.

This bugged me too about Source Code, I couldn't think past it all, and its disappointing that the film didn't address it in any way. It seemed like a really point to just skip over.

Still I enjoyed the film, and I hear its getting a TV series spin off, so we best get to the TV forum and create a plot hole thread when that pilot comes out.:pac:

Duggy747

Con Air

Cyrus The Virus is handcuffed to the fire truck's ladder.

Poe raises the ladder

Ladder goes through walkway above the street

We see Cyrus fly through the other side towards the hard street below him.

Then he winds up on a stone-crushing conveyor belt that appeared out of nowhere.



Great movie but that bit always irked me.

Dempsey

Handcuffs can break

Mickeroo

oxygen_temp wrote: »

the end of Source Code did not add up

They must have known at some point, that they were actually sending him back in time. Why not try to prevent the destruction of the train all along? I know the prevention of the destruction of the train invalidates any results for source code, since nothing ever appears to happen, but I can’t imagine they would be so results driven that they would knowingly massacre a train full of people.

No they clearly state in the film

that he's not time travelling, its more a temporary alternate reality that ceases to exist outside of the short window he has, at least thats what they wrongly thought

oxygen_temp wrote: »

Also, at the end, that is the new altered time line. But Jake Gyllenhaal continues to inhabit the character Sean’s body. He has no regard for the fact that he has presumably killed Sean. And he doesn’t ever say to Michelle Monaghan that he is not Sean. He doesn’t seem to have any intention of saying anything to her either. He will just go on in Sean’s body, having sex with Sean’s girlfriend and teaching a class full of children that he has no qualification to teach. He doesn’t seem like that despicable a character at the start of the movie.

Not a plot hole at all but regardless

its not as dispicable as it seems, the only way it could turn out that the train was not destroyed was by him inhabiting sean's body, therefore sean dies on the train no matter what, he has no choice but to stay in the body at that stage, the only way to save everyone else was to commandeer sean's conciousness.

Regards telling her, well no one would believe him he's someone else anyway. I'm pretty sure she wasn't sean's girlfriend either?? can't remember now but did they not just meet on the train? and besides it was him she fell for not sean. Either way its inconsequential to the film as all this would happen after the running time.

Mickeroo

Duggy747 wrote: »

Con Air

Cyrus The Virus is handcuffed to the fire truck's ladder.

Poe raises the ladder

Ladder goes through walkway above the street

We see Cyrus fly through the other side towards the hard street below him.

Then he winds up on a stone-crushing conveyor belt that appeared out of nowhere.



Great movie but that bit always irked me.

If people are questioning the logic of Con Air then it really is time to close the thread :pac: :P

syklops

oxygen_temp wrote: »

the end of Source Code did not add up

So he successfully completely prevents the train from being destroyed. So he doesn’t automatically zip back to the office where his body is. He sends a text to the lady in the office to say Source Code works better than they could have imagined and he was actually able to completely prevent the destruction of the train, not just catch the terrorist.

But a couple of things...

They must have known at some point, that they were actually sending him back in time. Why not try to prevent the destruction of the train all along? I know the prevention of the destruction of the train invalidates any results for source code, since nothing ever appears to happen, but I can’t imagine they would be so results driven that they would knowingly massacre a train full of people.

Also, at the end, that is the new altered time line. But Jake Gyllenhaal continues to inhabit the character Sean’s body. He has no regard for the fact that he has presumably killed Sean. And he doesn’t ever say to Michelle Monaghan that he is not Sean. He doesn’t seem to have any intention of saying anything to her either. He will just go on in Sean’s body, having sex with Sean’s girlfriend and teaching a class full of children that he has no qualification to teach. He doesn’t seem like that despicable a character at the start of the movie.

Your not thinking 4th dimensionally. Sean lives on just in an alternative reality. In one of those alternatives Sean dies on the train crash. In another alternative he probably missed the train. In another he might have died of food poisoning at the age of 6.

Or possibly 5th dimensionally.

krudler

Duggy747 wrote: »

Con Air

Cyrus The Virus is handcuffed to the fire truck's ladder.

Poe raises the ladder

Ladder goes through walkway above the street

We see Cyrus fly through the other side towards the hard street below him.

Then he winds up on a stone-crushing conveyor belt that appeared out of nowhere.



Great movie but that bit always irked me.

and to make it worse it goes from the Vegas strip to a tunnel (which is not on the strip, its in LA) then winds up a stones throw from a scrap yard?

snafuk35

Any movie where a guy gets hit by a bullet and gets blown through the air just wrecks my head!

Bullets do not throw people through the air or knock them down!

People fall when they are hit because the pain, shock or massive blood loss and traumatic injury means they can no longer stand up and usually they sag to the ground in a crumpled heap or stumble for a few steps and then go down.

In Miami two hoodlums were cornered by FBI agents and after being riddled with bullets they opened up on them taking several of them out - dead or wounded - before finally succumbing to their wounds.

In older movies particularly cowboy movies from the 1950s when a bad guy was hit he clutched his wound, grimaced in pain, slumped to his knees, looked pleadingly into the hero's eyes and then fell on his face. This is apparently highly realistic believe it or not!

The actors performed this way because Hollywood was full out of men who had seen combat in WW2 and they were only mimicking what they had actually seen.

Nowadays movies are made by geeks who have never been to war.

It shows!

Mickeroo

snafuk35 wrote: »

Any movie where a guy gets hit by a bullet and gets blown through the air just wrecks my head!

Bullets do not throw people through the air or knock them down!

People fall when they are hit because the pain, shock or massive blood loss and traumatic injury means they can no longer stand up and usually they sag to the ground in a crumpled heap or stumble for a few steps and then go down.

In Miami two hoodlums were cornered by FBI agents and after being riddled with bullets they opened up on them taking several of them out - dead or wounded - before finally succumbing to their wounds.

In older movies particularly cowboy movies from the 1950s when a bad guy was hit he clutched his wound, grimaced in pain, slumped to his knees, looked pleadingly into the hero's eyes and then fell on his face. This is apparently highly realistic believe it or not!

The actors performed this way because Hollywood was full out of men who had seen combat in WW2 and they were only mimicking what they had actually seen.

Nowadays movies are made by geeks who have never been to war.

It shows!

News flash, most films, including action films, generally are not set in real life nor do they adhere to real life laws of physics, its a stylistic choice on the part of the film maker to make things more exciting or just basically to look cool. Cars don't explode on impact when they go over cliffs or crash, there's no sound in space and all american phone numbers dont really start with 555 either.

Skullsri

Fast and furious tokyo drift Hann crashes and his car explodes =Hann dead but then out comes fast and furious 4 and hes in it?wtf?

Dempsey

Skullsri wrote: »

Fast and furious tokyo drift Hann crashes and his car explodes =Hann dead but then out comes fast and furious 4 and hes in it?wtf?

F&TF4 happens before Toyko Drift, Hollywood is sooo clever! :rolleyes: