Biggest plot holes in films (spoilers)
Discussion
rider73 said:
Star Wars Revenge of the Sith - why did Padme "lose the will to live" just after telling Obi Wan that she feels good in Anakin and to turn him back from the dark side.....if she feels good in him - stay alive - but she decides to die of the famous medical condition "losing the will to live"
In fairness, I nearly suffered the same fate when watching that film.
robemcdonald said:
There are some inconsistencies about how the stones are used though. For example: Do you need the gauntlet to make them work?
I think it's a device that makes it easier for a lesser being to use them. Dependent on willpower.rider73 said:
The worst bit of Endgame is when "past" Thanos after learning he gets all the stones and "wins", decides for some reason to come to the future (without the stones) and try and defeat everyone - instead he should have just sat tight and remembered that when he does the "snap" he also removes all the Avengers team, instead of just half of them.
bizarre!
It was personal for him then, he had just been beaten by the Avengers and was super salty, he hadn't learnt to accept defeat yet, the battle of NYC being his first. Plus with the multi-diemnsial aspect, who's to say his future would run the same, as he now has new info. Squidworth may have advised there.bizarre!
warch said:
If we're doing Star Wars, wasn't it lucky that R2 crash landed in his escape pod in the same vicinity as the old Jedi Knight he needed to deliver a message to. Or Luke crash landed on a jungle planet practically right outside Yoda's front door. See also numerous other examples of this from pretty much every other Star Wars film.
R2 had a mission and would have known roughly on the continent where Kenobi was. And on Dagobah the X-Wing controls flaked, and Yoda would have 'guided' it in. No plot hole.No plotholes posted thus far, and I am tryig to think of a good one.
Jurassic World 2 is a decent one, although this may be calling reconning. In JW1, the pond is in the middle of the island, in JW2, the pond is on the ocean, so the big fish can escape...real s
tty writing. But then JW2 is an embarrassment of a film.
There was also the Jurassic Park 2 bit, which has a T-Rex in a ship, and we see an arm hanging from the steerig wheel, this makes no sense and could not happen as the cab is small, but from what I recall there were meant to be raptors onboard, this was changed, but then they left the arm scene in, so again, another impossibility, thus plot hole.
Jurassic World 2 is a decent one, although this may be calling reconning. In JW1, the pond is in the middle of the island, in JW2, the pond is on the ocean, so the big fish can escape...real s
tty writing. But then JW2 is an embarrassment of a film.There was also the Jurassic Park 2 bit, which has a T-Rex in a ship, and we see an arm hanging from the steerig wheel, this makes no sense and could not happen as the cab is small, but from what I recall there were meant to be raptors onboard, this was changed, but then they left the arm scene in, so again, another impossibility, thus plot hole.
Halb said:
It was personal for him then, he had just been beaten by the Avengers and was super salty, he hadn't learnt to accept defeat yet, the battle of NYC being his first. Plus with the multi-diemnsial aspect, who's to say his future would run the same, as he now has new info. Squidworth may have advised there.
well IMHO - i felt the whole point of Thanos and his quest was that it was not personal, otherwise he would has snapped away all the avengers when he did the original snap....and the basis of the whole film was that the Avengers were not altering the existing timeline , although they broke that rule in like 2 seconds. For me it just undermined everything previously built that was against the whole character of Thanos and his purpose , with just one throwaway line as to why he should go forward in time to take on a lot more superheroes/Avengers... without any stones and already being defeated once by just a few Avengers . IMHO it made absolutely no sense - but hey they needed a big baddie battle at the end.I am just going to leave this here and destroy your weekend.... 
https://www.movieamigos.com/home/2017/5/31/why-ind...
https://www.movieamigos.com/home/2017/5/31/why-ind...
Yeah, Indy being irrelevant in Raiders was the subject of a Big Bang Theory episode years ago. I don't think they had a point, but it's a bit of a chat
rider73 said:
well IMHO - i felt the whole point of Thanos and his quest was that it was not personal, otherwise he would has snapped away all the avengers when he did the original snap....and the basis of the whole film was that the Avengers were not altering the existing timeline , although they broke that rule in like 2 seconds. For me it just undermined everything previously built that was against the whole character of Thanos and his purpose , with just one throwaway line as to why he should go forward in time to take on a lot more superheroes/Avengers... without any stones and already being defeated once by just a few Avengers . IMHO it made absolutely no sense - but hey they needed a big baddie battle at the end.
I can't recall the dialogue exactly, but he's salty at the Avengers and I think Stark specifically in the chitchat he has in Endgame. the 2012 Thanos, who hasn't learnt a bit of humility. Brolin played him differently and it makes sense to me.The basis holds so long as the stones are put back and nothing changes, but stuff did change, so that alters stuff and the fallout from that, with all the theories won't be known till we see the new films. Spider-Man 2 teased it, but it was just bait'n'switch. The Hypno-Toad said:
I am just going to leave this here and destroy your weekend....
I love Indiana Jones films (he's the cool side of the job that no archaeologist can live up to). I like that in all his films he sort of stumbles from one situation to the next, surviving more by audacity and luck, quite unlike most implacable, superpowered heroes you get in modern films.I think it is entirely appropriate in light of this that he has little or no influence on the outcome of Raiders of the Lost Ark. He and his father are fairly counterproductive in their efforts to avoid the Nazis laying their hands on the Holy Grail too.
CaptainSlow said:
rider73 said:
Star Wars Revenge of the Sith - why did Padme "lose the will to live" just after telling Obi Wan that she feels good in Anakin and to turn him back from the dark side.....if she feels good in him - stay alive - but she decides to die of the famous medical condition "losing the will to live"
In fairness, I nearly suffered the same fate when watching that film.That was what they thought she was dying from but it was far more sinister; when Padme was seemingly wasting away, Darth Vader was at the same time a crispy critter and beyond saving.
The sith lord, Darth Plagueis the wise was the sith who started the ball rolling, his occult learnings of the midi-chlorians accidentally spawned Anakin, who was born 'of the force'. His knowledge of how to manipulate the midi-chlorians to create life itself was passed to his apprentice, Darth Sidious (Palpatine) which was when Palpatine killed him. Since there can only be a sith master and apprentice, Palpatine knew that he was expendable now another "apprentice" was present. By killing Darth Plagueis, Palpatine was able to recruit Darth Maul (the phantom menace) then Darth Tyrannus (Count Dooku) to ensure his own immortality as a sith lord, something only achieved by Plagueis.
Palpatine explains the learnings of Darth Plagueis the wise
When the creation of Darth Plagueis, Darth Vader, was beyond salvation, Palpatine used that knowledge to manipulate the midi-chlorians away from Padme and gift them to Vader, keeping Vader alive. Padme, as a result, died.
In episode VI when Vader throws the Emperor over the balcony, zapping Vader in the process, it's thought that Vader then dies due to his circuits being fried but in reality the Emperor has kept him alive through the midi-chlorian manipulation; at that point he used that power to keep himself alive and reappearing in episode IX and also explains the heritage of Rey; just as Anakin was conceived by the manipulation of the force by Darth Plagueis, Rey's heritage was born from the same manner by Darth Sidious
TL:DR Padme's life force was stolen by the emperor to keep Vader alive. And I've just revealed myself to be a complete star wars nut....
JonChalk said:
Classic Big Bang Theory explanation of Raiders of the Lost Ark;
Indiana Jones makes no difference to the outcome of the movie; without Jones, the Germans would have dug up the Ark, travelled around a bit with it, opened it and all died. Just the same as with his involvement.
The ark would have left in that island and be reclaimed by the NAZIs. Leaving open the possibility that Hitler may have succeeded. Having Indy meant yanks got it and buried it.Indiana Jones makes no difference to the outcome of the movie; without Jones, the Germans would have dug up the Ark, travelled around a bit with it, opened it and all died. Just the same as with his involvement.
The Ark theory is nice but falls down on one bit. When Indy goes to Nepal to find Marion the Gestapo bloke is on the same plane. So you can't conclude that the Nazis would have got to Marion eventually, it seems they had no clue where she was and had to follow Indy to find her.
As an interesting aside, the actor who played the Gestapo chap went on to play the Bishop of Bath and Wells in Blackadder 2.
As an interesting aside, the actor who played the Gestapo chap went on to play the Bishop of Bath and Wells in Blackadder 2.
JonChalk said:
Classic Big Bang Theory explanation of Raiders of the Lost Ark;
Indiana Jones makes no difference to the outcome of the movie; without Jones, the Germans would have dug up the Ark, travelled around a bit with it, opened it and all died. Just the same as with his involvement.
How would they have found the Ark without Jones?Indiana Jones makes no difference to the outcome of the movie; without Jones, the Germans would have dug up the Ark, travelled around a bit with it, opened it and all died. Just the same as with his involvement.
And assuming they had by chance, and they’d all died, presumably a Nazi clean up crew would have visited the islands and taken hold of the remains, rather than the US.
This reminds me of my mate’s new gf trying to impress by throwing that theory on the table when she first met all his mates. It was roundly dismantled and she was forced to admit she’d never seen Indy and got the theory off Big Bang.
I think that's a good observation, INdy led the NAZIs to Marion, which jollied up the excavation. But they did have a rip-off medallion and they had the time, resources and willpower to dig around that place for decades. It's a reasonable assumption that they'd have found it one day.
Actually, I just recalled one plot hole from the film, the staff is meant to be XYZ kadann "about 72 inches", but take back one kadann to honour the something of the hebrew go whose ark this is."...which would make it less than 72 inches, the staff Indy uses is yuge!
Actually, I just recalled one plot hole from the film, the staff is meant to be XYZ kadann "about 72 inches", but take back one kadann to honour the something of the hebrew go whose ark this is."...which would make it less than 72 inches, the staff Indy uses is yuge!
Disastrous said:
How would they have found the Ark without Jones?
The idea goes that the Nazis find Marion Ravenwood, obtain the headpiece from the Staff of Ra, which has the correct information for the staff height required to use to obtain the location of the Well of Souls in the map room, they find the Ark and hilarity ensues. As mentioned it does hinge on them finding Marion's bar but it scarcely detracts from one of greatest films ever made.
Voldemort said:
And the answer is...?
Seems it's a deleted scene, I had to look it up.https://whatculture.com/film/7-notable-movie-plot-...
But there is an answer out there, in the form of a rather crucial deleted scene that seems somewhat essential to the movie. According to Lawrence's Kasdan's original script, the submarine only goes beneath the water far enough so that its periscope is still sticking out of water. Indy clings to this, and then uses his whip to tie himself to as it drags him through the water. Seriously. He even notices sharks swimming around him during one moment. It sounds ludicrous, but perhaps less so when you consider that - according to Wikipedia, anyway - "U-boats were required to spend most of their time surfaced running on diesel engines, diving only when attacked or for rare daytime torpedo strikes.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff