Forum menu
Quite apart from having a very narrow field of fire, really only useful for enemy planes directly overhead, if that was fired, the shockwave would break every window in the castle. Anti-aircraft guns are stationed on hilltops miles away where they can shoot things down before they’re actually overhead dropping bombs.
most war films get the use of machine guns wrong, sticking out top floor windows and on top of buildings.... if you shoot at targets and miss the bullets go harmlessly into the ground. I guess it's not very cinematic putting them on the ground floor where their bullets keep on flying if they miss the target.
Written by Steven Seagal
You know what you'll get when you watch it, yet how little the plots make sense amazes me. You would think that essentially retreading the same story of a fantastic ex (or current) special forces fellow who is irresistible to young women and possesses the ability not just to hit targets when shooting with his eyes closed but can also cause the bullets to change direction in mid-air would at least get easier if not better. But they still have so many plot holes.
Plot Holes
Apparently if you get a puncture from one you can complain to the council and they'll cover the cost of the new tyre
Ooh, I remembered another one (I think).
Oceans 11 - they use an EMP to black everything out.
This causes chaos in the casino with people grabbing cash and falling over each other. In theory an EMP damages all the electronics, permanently.
Yet when they walk out, all the electronics in the buildings and cars are working again, and everyone in the casino is back as if nothing has happened....
Infinite bullets in hand guns with no re-loading .. Many films are guilty of this.
I know you can get extended magazines for some semi-autos... But when the shot count goes above 20...it gets a bit silly! Lol!
And they are not even wearing a heavy jacket loaded with lots fresh mags which would weigh a ton, preventing them from doing all the gymnastics in the fight scenes.
Must be a choice as Woody speaks to the neighbour kid and has the other toys freak him out. Condemning him to life on a psychiatric ward.
Or a job as a bin man
Dunno if they're technically plot holes, but two from the more recent Star Wars films. Actually maybe they can be combined into one. There's using the jump to lightspeed to destroy the Star Destroyer, making every big space battle in any of the films pretty much pointless. Then later in the same film (I think) one of the robots is shooting stuff up using one of the walkers. If they can do that, why do humans* need to do anything?
*and the rest of them
Wasn’t it Raquel Welsh or Rita Hayworth or some such?
Rita Hayworth first, then replaced with Rachel Welsh in Two Million Years B.C.
I have always assumed the posters were just held up at the top and he lifted the bottom to get into the hole he was digging. I will never, ever, get tired of that film.
Exactly it hangs at the top.
How did the Empire not catch Obi Wan Kenobi after he cunningly changed his name to Old Ben Kenobi
Kenobi is a bit like Smith.
How can that many clones bread specifically to be soldiers, with that many Lazer guns, fail to hit a single target?
Also they come through a single doorway one after the other to be mown down. Did they learn nothing from WWII films?
Does anyone else bother to read the rest of a post that starts like this?
Of course, I was curious as to what it would say. The next gen CHATgpt 40 will be fully conversational. Questions like this will render STW queries redundant. 😏
4Weddings – Hugh choosing Andie MacDowell over Kristin Scott Thomas.
From memory (I haven’t watched it since it aired at the cinema), I would have.
So would I. Actually, one, either, one at a time… 🤷🏼
None of the droids make any sense. Are they alive or what? Why are they so weirdly specific in what they are good at. And why do they need to “talk” everything. Haven’t they got wifi?
‘Alive’ is, of course, a loaded question in this context. They’re true robots with an AI core processor, and in exactly the same way that humans have, and have always had individuals who are very much specific in the tasks they perform, it’s perfectly reasonable that robots would not only have a specialised ability within them, they would be built to allow them to work in specific environments.
Think about it, why wouldn’t they be? Humans have to use specific tools to carry out tasks in their specialised environments, robots would be even more effective with all the tools available built in. Clearly a question posed by someone who’s never read much SF or watched many SF films.
I will never, ever, get tired of that film.
Remind me to add that film to the "things you should like, but never got into" thread. I've no real understanding why otherwise normal seeming folk are so in love with a film that's as so blatantly an evangelically Christian white saviour creation tale
Does anyone else bother to read the rest of a post that starts like this?
But you did read it… 😂
'fraid not. You gave me the opportunity not to with the first line - If there was an extension that filtered out AI-Reply-guys I could have saved myself the bother of even doing that 🙂
Every Bond villain lair has apparently been built without ever raising any suspicions regarding audit trails, supply chains, the vast army of highly skilled labour required to construct it, the money to fund it and – in the more recent films – without ever showing up on spy satellite pics and causing someone in any nation’s intelligence services to ask WTF is being built on [remote island].
Thats not so far fetched. There are massive complexes that have been built in the UK without raising any suspicion. A mountain to the north of the Cromarty Firth was hollowed out in complete secrecy - you just don't let people go home at the end of a shift. Inside the mountain, as well as massive cathedral-sized oil bunkers for fuelling WW1 fleet....... theres a cinema.
And they are not even wearing a heavy jacket loaded with lots fresh mags which would weigh a ton, preventing them from doing all the gymnastics in the fight scenes.
Also, the guys wearing suits and office shoes who can run like an olympic athlete and do martial arts without tearing all the seams out of their clothes.
Oceans 11 – they use an EMP to black everything out.
And yet the camera, sound and lighting equipment all continued working. Which is a shame 🙂
I’ve no real understanding why otherwise normal seeming folk are so in love with a film that’s as so blatantly an evangelically Christian white saviour creation tale.
Yet, here's me, I've seen the film probably 50+ times, read the original short story and seen the stage show and not once has it crossed my mind that it is a blatant Christian white saviour creation tale.
Why does Laura Croft: Tomb Raider go all the way the the Arctic to retrieve the other half of the triangle thingy? She knows that it only works with both halves, so all she has to do is destroy the half she's got already. Job jobbed.
Why does Laura Croft: Tomb Raider go all the way the the Arctic to retrieve the other half of the triangle thingy?
Because it’s what her hero and inspiration, Indian Jones, would have done?
Infinite bullets in hand guns with no re-loading .. Many films are guilty of this.
Because it's cheaper than hiring a competent technical advisor(s) and training an actor to be convincing on screen.
Fool me once (Netflix, who'd'v thought!)
Turns out she knew all along what happened, but investigated anyway.
Plot holes....
James Bond. Every film. Every twenty minutes or often less.
No Time to Die
The "nanobots" make no sense. But given the major world events between its writing, filming, reshoots, and release; it would make a lot more sense if it was a virus.
Does anyone actually say "nanobots" to camera so you can read their lips? And if they do, are they looking about 2 years older than in the rest of the scene?
Infinite bullets in hand guns with no re-loading .. Many films are guilty of this.
Because it’s cheaper than hiring a competent technical advisor(s) and training an actor to be convincing on screen.
its less about competence and realism, more about making sure your film is at least 90 minutes long 🙂
see also The Fast and the Furious and the number of gear changes required to drive a car in a straight line.
Neither of these things are plot holes. They’re just padding, if you didn’t keep changing gear or spraying bullets you’d have to fill that time with ideas. That’s not as easy as it sounds
Infinite bullets in hand guns with no re-loading .. Many films are guilty of this.
Because it’s cheaper than hiring a competent technical advisor(s) and training an actor to be convincing on screen.
You can have combat consultants as technical advisors on set, you can even have actors who trained with FBI hostage rescue teams to make them realistic... but with 20 takes and 5 camera angles, that doesn't get reflected in the editing room floor where they go for what looks cooler.
The Fast and the Furious and the number of gear changes required to drive a car in a straight line.
Well, they are modified cars... Maybe they are running gearboxes from Scania lorries!
a film that’s as so blatantly an evangelically Christian white saviour creation tale
Are you sure?
I know in the film red is black but I thought in the book red was ginger, so white not black. Andy is white in the book, like the ginger red. And white in the film contrasting with the black red.
But to be honest I don't think colour really came into it.
but with 20 takes and 5 camera angles, that doesn’t get reflected in the editing room floor where they go for what looks cooler.
There's plenty of movies that dismiss that argument. It's simply about if the 'action' is integral to the plot or just entertainment.
Realism is boring and uneventful.
competence and realism
They're often very dull concepts to the average movie goer.
Anti-aircraft guns are stationed on hilltops miles away where they can shoot things down before they’re actually overhead dropping bombs
Hmm, not sure about that. The Bethnal Green tube disaster of 1943 was supposed to have triggered by testing anti aircraft guns nearby - in the East End of London.
"Rita Hayworth first, then replaced with Rachel Welsh in Two Million Years B.C."
It was 1 million years BC. Released in the US in 1967
Andy Dufrane escaped in 1966.....
tomhoward: Raiders of the Lost Arc would have ended exactly the same way without the presence of Indiana Jones.
S'not true, if Indie hadn't arrived and saved Marion (she'd have died otherwise) and the medallion, the Nazi would have known not to look at the ark when opening it (it's on the back of the medallion) & been able to use it against the allies, but because of Indie the Allies got it and stored it safety away
thestabiliser: Also where did Indy hide on the submarine? Or did he just hold his breath while it crossed the Adriatic
Your mistaking 1930's submarine for a modern one, those submarine only travelled under water for short periods (24-48hrs), but mainly travelled on the surface I believe (set in 1936 so they weren't at war yet).
It was 1 million years BC. Released in the US in 1967
Andy Dufrane escaped in 1966…..
My mistake (although, that film in itself has a massive plot hole – the last dinosaurs died some 65 million years ago and the earliest man was around 3 million years ago so their paths would never have crossed).
And I did not know that about the year Andy escapes (wanders off to Google to verify before I spout it out to everyone that cares to listen)...
Edit - the film came out on 30 December 1966 and he *could* have got a pre-release poster sent to him at a very tenuous push.
Edit edit... On the morning of March 12, 1975, after 28 years in prison, Andy disappears from his locked cell.
Edit edit edit... In 1965, Andy escaped from Shawshank Prison. He had spent 23 years tunneling through the wall of his cell with his Rock Hammer
Does the internet even know?
in snow piercer why does the train have to move? If the energy source is perpetual.
Also if for sone reason that can be justified. Why does the train have to circumnavigate the earth, sure it could just do a perpetual loop around somewhere nice and flat like the netherlands.
Also... How is everything covered in ice yet the tracks are always free of buildup/on top of the snow.
Also how was all this built and yet there was no planning for the event in any other way.
Kenobi is a bit like Smith.
I never thought of this. Intergalactic phone book just full of them! 🤣
Some major assumptions there – why can’t we have R2-11 or R2-A11 etc?
True. But we never come across them. The Rx line went up to at least R9 that I'm aware of and whilst I'm stretching the corners of my nerdery here and could be totally wrong I've never seen a unit designation in double digits.
Of course, the non-diegetic reason is simple, they're easy numbers for the viewers to grok. R2-2X4B-523P would be such a dorky name. But as I said, it twanged at my young mind.
AFAIK this is entirely something invented by fans (and possibly non-film material, books, games etc). R2D2 is his designation but there’s no such thing as an R2 model
Fandom aside, IIRC it's referenced in the original film. Either Luke or Owen (somehow, farm boy?) identifies R2-D2 as an "R2 unit." I'd have to rewatch it to be certain though, this may be Mandela Effect.
“This R2 unit has a bad motivator. “
”What are you trying to push on us?”
So this is supposedly a transcripy of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Larry Kasdan plotting out the film
Supposedly.
There may be a truth in it, I have no idea, but it's not how the film panned out. We start with Indy being a teacher, the young women in his class are crushing on him and he is very clearly deeply uncomfortable about this. We could suppose that this is because of past indiscretions with Marion but that's something of a logic leap. If Wikipedia is to be believed then this notion comes from the novelisation of the film.
he lifted the bottom to get into the hole
Be honest, we've all been there.
so blatantly an evangelically Christian white saviour creation tale
Wuh?
This R2 unit has a bad motivator
I think I must be an R2 unit!
a film that’s as so blatantly an evangelically Christian white saviour creation tale
What? From Stephen King, who is on record as not having much time for organised religion. Unless C S Lewis actually wrote Shawshank, I think you’re wide of the mark.
https://amp.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/29/stephen-king-religion-dangerous-god-exists
It's literally called "Redemption"
noun
1.
the action of saving or being saved from sin
Andy is an innocent, the Warden is ultimately forced to answer for his crimes, Andy perform miracles (beer, the library and music) has disciples, some of whom are Romans (the prison guards), is reborn through the tunnels he uses to escape and stands in the rain in the shape of Jesus on the cross, he even leaves Red directions which on how to find him that work like scripture, and Red finds Andy dressed in white in a fantasy paradise.
There's a reason its always in the top ten lists of "Every film Christians should watch" I mean, take what you want from it, but the subtext is there.