Plot hole: There is a barely credible explanation for the fact that a guest cannot be injured or killed by being shot in Westworld, but what about the vicious fistfight we see in the bar? People are injured or killed in bar brawls all the time, and this one was incredibly violent. How do they prevent guests from being injured or killed by the cutting and stabbing weapons we see in Medieval and Roman World? Guests are supposed to fight each other, not just robots - they cannot be 'programmed' to lose! Delos is going be sued into bankruptcy within a week of the first guest arriving. Quite apart from the legal position, think about the bad publicity! Who is going to pay the huge fees demanded by the parks owners when the media is constantly reporting on the guests who wound up dead or with life changing injuries?
Continuity mistake: Towards the end of the movie, when Joey Nova is trying to get out of town, he sells his football ring to the drug dealer, but in the final scene he is clearly shown wearing the ring when he points the gun at his father.
Visible crew/equipment: When Dr. Okun is about to unlock "the vault", and says, "The freak show," a crewmember wearing a black and white striped shirt is hiding under the vault's floor, right behind Okun. (Only visible on fullscreen DVD.)
Factual error: During CONTROL's paintball training session, a barrel view of a bullet exiting the gun is shown as it travels to its target. However, the entire bullet is shown, casing and all, instead of just the bullet. (00:09:10)
Visible crew/equipment: At the end when Sidney's dad falls out of the closet, if you look closely you can see the hands of a crewmember who was in there too, pushing items out after him. (01:42:40)
Continuity mistake: The tyres on the crotch rocket motorcycles they were riding kept changing from knobbly tyres to road slicks, back and forth depending on what terrain they were on. Easiest to see when Ethan skids on the road to avoid the white van - clear shot of slick tyres - then about 30 seconds later they're on the dirt, he skids into the old car and you can easily see that he's got off-road tyres front and back.
Revealing mistake: When Dracula flies into the room to stop his brides from devouring Jonathan, the board carrying him is visible. (00:34:10)
Plot hole: Necros had absolutely no way of knowing that Bond and Saunders had arranged to meet at the café when they did and wouldn't have had anywhere near enough time to track them down and set up his elaborate booby trap. Saunders only suggested the meeting place and time a few hours earlier, and it was kept strictly between him and Bond. The scene in Tangier, where Whittaker tells Necros to kill another British agent, takes place on the same day Bond arrived in Vienna; meaning that Necros got from Tangier to Vienna (a 5-hour plus flight), tracked down Saunders, acquired the materials to booby trap the café doors (or had planned this ahead of time - unlikely), and set the trap up well in advance of him and Bond getting to the fairground. There was nowhere near enough time for all of that to happen without Necros having psychic knowledge of Saunders' movements.
Character mistake: The last time Doc tries the defibrillator on Norris, he uses it on the abdomen instead of on the chest. He also positions the pads incorrectly. They should be placed diagonal, with the heart in the middle, not horizontal.
Factual error: The movie is supposed to take place in and around New York City. However, during the car chase where Angelina and Brad are fighting off the three BMWs, a wide shot shows a street sign announcing Los Angeles.
Continuity mistake: In the British Museum, when Rick and Ardeth are saving Evie, Rick gives her a .45 pistol and they start to shoot the guards, her pistol fires once and the slide locks back meaning the pistol had no ammo, but she keeps firing as if the magazine was still full. (00:39:47)
Continuity mistake: During the infamous leg un-crossing scene when Sharon Stone is being interrogated, a cigarette in her hand disappears and then reappears.
Plot hole: This film is set in 2004. The thought that no search and rescue operations would be put in place after an aircraft disappeared from radar during a routine flight is absurd. The Chinese are paranoid about intrusion on their territory and the downed aircraft would have been located by a simple satellite search within hours of it crashing. Chinese military satellites crisscross the Gobi and they are equipped with optical cameras, microwave and infrared detectors and radar, so spotting a metal aircraft on the ground would be simple even if it was hundreds of kilometres off course. The crew would have been visited by Chinese military helicopters (and probably arrested!) as soon as the storm had died down.
Suggested correction: The Chinese government, for whatever reason, may have denied there was any crash at all if it suited their purposes, and the oil company that owned the plane would have little recourse. The Chinese have done this before. For the purpose of the plot, the survivors decided that they had to save themselves rather than wait for rescue and that was completely plausible.
Suggested correction: It's now 2021, and we still can't find Malaysian Airlines MH370. So this suggestion of planes always being found is laughable.
MH370 crashed into the ocean, and in fact some wreckage has been found. The Chinese military does not have the south Indian Ocean under satellite surveillance 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, unlike the Gobi desert where a crashed plane would be spotted within hours of it going missing.
Factual error: Based on the films being shown at the theater, the movie appears to be set in 1981. One of the TV commercials shows the Energizer Bunny, which didn't make its first appearance until 1988.
Factual error: The hat that Brad Pitt wears in the 1985 scenes is a Padres hat with navy, orange and white as the colours. In 1985, the Padres' colors were brown and yellow. The color change didn't come until late 80's or early 90's.
Revealing mistake: There are supposed to be two dead young Asian males sitting in the back of the car, but in this shot, it is so obvious that there are two dead 'dummies' riding in the back. Also, in the crash, a few seconds later, very blatant dummy heads are flying everywhere. (00:40:40)
Factual error: Towards the end of the film, Solomon is trapped in a small Plexiglas box and fires his gun into the bulletproof sides numerous times, but the bullets don't ricochet or get embedded in the glass.
Other mistake: In the slaughterhouse scene, after Harrigan has injured the Predator with his shotgun and Keyes reappears, the Predator throws its disc, and severs Keyes in half at the waist. We see his legs flop to the ground, and blood pour from above, but his upper half (torso, backpack and weaponry) mysteriously remain hovering out of sight. (According to the director, the MPAA made him cut the footage of the top half of his body hitting the ground because it was too gory, creating this odd error). (01:21:50)
Suggested correction: We don't actually know if the disc completely cuts Keyes in half (or just passes through him and leaves a gaping hole). You see the blood, but the movie is edited so that it cuts back to Harrigan looking on in horror for a split-second, then back to Keyes' body on the floor (mostly obscured by a cement pillar).
They blatantly show his legs hitting the ground without the top half! I can only assume you watched an edited-for-TV version or something. It's VERY clear in the movie that he was cut in half. (In actuality, the scene was the victim of the MPAA according to the director... they had to cut the bit where the top half of his body hit the ground because it was too gory... creating this odd movie mistake).
Continuity mistake: When Brant kills Barry at the end of the movie, Brant lowers his gun after shooting him, but in the next shot he is pointing his gun at Barry. Also, the scene shows Brant holding a semi-automatic style handgun before shooting Barry, then when the scene pulls out it shows him holding a revolver, then shows him holding the semi-auto again.
Plot hole: Further to the comments about the Lunar Lander being useless as a Mars Lander - who is going to believe that three men spent eighteen months crammed into a tiny Lunar Command Module? Not only would they go out of their minds, where would they store the tonnes of water and food they would need in that tiny capsule? How could the Service Module carry enough oxygen or have enough battery power to make the trip?
Suggested correction: You're assuming they travelled from Earth to Mars in the lander alone. The astronauts didn't do this when they went to the moon. The Lunar Lander was attached to the command module during the 3-day journey. When the astronauts reached the moon, they detached the lander from the command module and landed on the surface. It is reasonable to believe the astronauts for Capricorn One did the same thing, except on a much bigger ship for a journey that lasted over a year. We just never saw it.
The posting did not refer to the Lunar Lander, it referred to the tiny Lunar Command Module, the only part of the Saturn V that returned to Earth. From 44:00 to 48:08 of the film we see a live broadcast, supposedly from Martian orbit, showing all three astronauts crammed into a Lunar Command Module. The posting is absolutely correct.
This is another Deus ex Machina explanation for a blatant film mistake. The astronauts launched into orbit in a standard Saturn V rocket which could not possibly carry anything like a spacecraft large enough to make the trip to Mars. There is nothing in the film to suggest that there was a "much bigger ship" involved.
They are also shown seated in the tiny Apollo command module, supposedly transmitting messages from orbit around Mars. The posting is absolutely correct.
You're assuming the astronauts were launched in a standard Saturn V rocket, but with all the resources needed for a journey to Mars that took 18 months round trip, NASA would have to send them on a larger rocket to accommodate the required oxygen, water, food, spare parts, supplies, etc. needed to bring them back safely.
Did you watch the film? From 1:54 to 2:25 we see an establishing shot of a perfectly ordinary Saturn V rocket on the launch pad. From 6:05 to 6:43 we see all three astronauts strapped into the tiny, Lunar Command Module. As has already been pointed out from 44:00 to 48:08 we see a live broadcast, supposedly from Martian orbit, showing all three astronauts crammed into a Lunar Command Module. There is absolutely no mention of a larger spacecraft and none is ever shown.
Suggested correction: The explanation given in the TV show would seem to easily apply to the original film as well: guests can be injured, but not to the point that it would leave a lasting mark. The park has access to futuristic medical techniques, so they can heal most non-life-threatening injuries easily. Also the guests almost certainly sign waivers, so in the event of serious injury the park isn't liable.
Suggested correction: It's easy to nitpick the factual details of "Westworld," the screenplay of which was written on-the-fly on a fairly limited budget, even by early 1970s' standards. Author Michael Crichton (who also wrote "The Andromeda Strain," "The Terminal Man," "Congo," "Sphere," "Jurassic Park" and several other technological thrillers) himself acknowledged that Westworld was more a visual story (like a comic book) than a cerebral piece of science fiction, and he learned on this movie that suspension of disbelief outweighed technical or even factual details, if he wanted to expedite the story in an hour-and-a-half. Crichton said he was having more fun and devoting more time to shooting the film than actually writing it, comparing the experience to playing cowboys and indians as a child. So, yes, Westworld is not much more than an adult fantasy with a number of plot holes that we are supposed to gleefully overlook, rather than analyze.
Charles Austin Miller
Except for blatant continuity mistakes you just invalidated every single entry on this site.
Suggested correction: Westworld ensure that any interactions with the robots are entirely safe for the patrons of the park. They cannot prevent humans fighting amongst themselves, just as Disneyland can't prevent people fighting there. People are also injured or die all the time in horse-riding accidents, but that won't lead to people suing Westworld. Due to the nature of the park, all the guests likely sign a waiver stating that any injuries are not the fault of the park.
Utter rubbish. Guests who were completely innocent bystanders could be killed or injured by the actions of other guests, notably in the bar brawl or by the explosion used in the jailbreak. We see one guest smash a barstool against the back of another guest - not a robot - which could easily have broken his spine. There is no question whatever that the owners and managers of the park would be held liable in this and many other cases, just as amusement park owners and managers nowadays are held liable when roller coasters or other rides go awry, injuring or killing guests.
The most plausible explanation would be a waiver that visitors to the park have to sign. The waiver would explain that while the robots cannot harm humans, other humans can, and the park is not held responsible. In the event of death or serious injury, the guest who caused it would face criminal charges and possibly a civil lawsuit. But a waiver would protect the park. Also, the rules of the park may be similar to those in the HBO Westworld series, where the robots cannot cause a "permanent mark", meaning they can injure guests as long as the injury is repairable.