Character mistake: When wondering how close they are to the top of the cliff, Xavier asks Magneto "How much further?" The word "further" is used for non-measurable or figurative advancement. He should have asked how much farther, as that refers to actual distance between objects. An educated man like Xavier would certainly know the difference between the two. (00:02:44)
Phaneron
22nd Feb 2021
X-Men (1992)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: While "farther" is used for physical distance, further can be too, especially in British English. Farther also tends to be used for a measured physical distance, so if the actual distance isn't known, further can be used. What Charles said is grammatically correct.
29th Dec 2020
Batman Returns (1992)
Corrected entry: There are several biker clowns not beaten by Batman early in the movie, but they disappear for the rest of it.
Correction: Not sure how this is a mistake, just because those henchmen were not featured later in the film.
16th Dec 2020
Constantine (2005)
Corrected entry: Constantine threatens demon Balthazar with the last Rites, so Balthazar goes to heaven where he for sure doesn't want to end. However, if it is so easy and possible even for a demon to go to heaven, why is occult expert Constantine still searching so desperately for the big way out of hell? He only needs to find a catholic priest who gives Constantine the last Rites.
Correction: Constantine mentions to Balthasar afterwards you have to ask to be forgiven before you are accepted into heaven. He needs to believe, it only a bluff. Constantine himself is too stubborn to ask to be forgiven and instead feels the need to buy his way into heaven, he does not believe in the grace of God (who he feels is a hypocrite). The demon can not be sent to heaven just because he was read his last rites, he doesn't believe in the grace of God either.
Constantine himself is too stubborn to ask to be forgiven and would rather go to hell where the devil would so love to meet him? To be honest, that's even a bigger plot hole. The whole story is about Constantine being too selfish and now him being more stubborn than being selfish is the problem? I don't think so.
The problem is he doesn't believe in the grace of God. Thats bigger than his stubbornness. He knows he is going to hell, but he doesn't think that's fair and should be admitted to heaven regardless of his believes. He won't submit to the hypocrisy of God. He doesn't like God, almost as much as he doesn't like the devil. But naturally he doesn't want to go to hell so he tries to buy his way into heaven by fighting the devil's spawns. But he would never bow to God to get to heaven. At the end of the movie he does find a way though, by sacrifice, but an opportunity like that needs to present itself, he can't create one, unlike being forgiven. It's not a plot hole, it's the plot.
I am really upset with "corrections" like this. With stubbornness people could "correct" any movie mistake caused by any protagonists. And it also makes no sense. I think the entry is valid and should be published without any "corrections"! Constantine for sure would believe in the grace of god if he would get some AND he would for sure get some, if he would call a priest which gives him his last Rites. Problem solved. You are creating a problem where no problem is, just pure assumption. And for sure he would bow to god cause he doesn't want to bow to devil even less.
The correction is valid if you ask me. Constantine specifically refers to God as being a kid with an ant farm, and doesn't really believe God cares that much for humanity. At the end of the film, he acknowledges that God does indeed have a plan for everyone and that he had to die twice to finally understand that. That's Constantine's arc. As lionhead said, that is literally the film's plot.
Problem with the correction is, that he escapes hell not because he has lost his stubbornness or because his relationship to god has changed (which has not). He indirectly escapes hell cause he commited suicide to save Angela from being killed by Gabriel. Which wasn't even awarded by god, only the devil was so nice (!) and asked him unnecessarily for a quid-pro-quo wish. And that's not even suicide, it is martyrdom and that alone should buy him a ticket out of hell, plus he saves a woman he loves, plus he keeps the balance in balance. 3 tickets in once, he doesn't even has to trade his soul for the soul of Isabel, he has already done more than enough. There are many plot holes.
You assume those 3 tickets are enough, but they aren't. All of them are him still trying to buy his way into heaven. It's about love for god, not love for another person nor fighting the devil. Plus he was dying anyway. But the self-sacrifice, not his life saved by the devil but the twin sister send to heaven, is the one thing he could do to be admitted.
He already sacrificed himself for one sister, second sister is unnecessary. The devil's him granting a wish is just a feelgood moment for the audience to save the second sister. That's unnecessary and therefore a plot hole.
He didn't sacrifice himself for the first sister. He did it to stop Mammon, not for the love of Angela.
"Stubbornness" is a valid correction when people submit mistakes, especially plot holes, because they think a character should act in a different way than they would. Nothing about Constantine's behave or believe goes against his already established character (which is based on the comics). Having him act the way you want him to could also be seen by some as a plot device and thus a plot hole.
However him committing suicide a second time, is an act of love, maybe not for god but for Angela (so she doesn't gets stabbed by Gabriel). This is martyrdom cause he also prevents Mammon to conquer earth and shows the love for an other human being. The one or the other way he has got the ticket out of hell already. Saving Isabel which he also does, isn't even that much compared what he has already done. So why should god forgive him after saving Isabel but not before (after saving Angela). The devil offering him a wish like a jinn is silly and unnecessary for sure.
He commited suicide the second time to stop Mammon because he knows Satan will show up and wouldn't like it when he finds out his son is trying to take power on Earth. He doesn't do it for love of Angela, nor would God see that as good enough to admit him into heaven (as he would still be buying his way into it). God and Satan are bound to certain rules (according to the "game" they play as mentioned by Constantine) so in exchange for helping Satan, Satan grants him a wish, not realising it is a wish that will admit Constantine into heaven. He is admitted into heaven not because he is forgiven, but because of his self-sacrifice (as Gabriel mentions, and the bible). I think you really need to rewatch both the conversation between Gabriel and Constantine at the church as well as the conversation between Constantine and Satan to understand the reasoning behind it all.
He already self-sacrificed himself for one sister, second sister is unnecessary. The devil's him granting a wish is just a feelgood moment for the audience to save the second sister. That's a plot hole.
Correction: Constantine was bluffing when he threatened Balthazar with the Last Rites. "True contrition" is required as well. This is different than just asking for forgiveness, something Constantine shows not to have. Of course, the Devil heals him in hopes that Constantine will once again damn himself to hell.
16th Dec 2020
Countdown (2019)
Stupidity: Dr. Sullivan not only put unwelcome moves on Quinn, he mentioned the good or lush letter of recommendation he wrote for her - implying he deserved or was entitled to a sexual favor in return. For "Doctor" Sullivan to do and say what he did in this day and age isn't merely a "character mistake", it is outright stupidity. (00:25:50)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Stupidity entries are not for when characters do something stupid, otherwise everything in "Dumb and Dumber" would be mistakes. Stupidities are minor plot holes that extend beyond character mistakes. The fact that in real life people in power behave this way means it's something the character of Dr. Sullivan could do.
Dumb and Dumber is supposed to be stupid; a medical doctor is not.
You missed the point entirely. It's not a stupidity that a man in power thinks he can get away with sexual harassment, despite being a doctor.
I didn't assert that he thought he could get away with it - he was being stupid for even saying such a thing.
Regardless of if you asserted it or not, unless someone thinks it's not wrong, people do questionable or illegal things because they think they can get away with it. But characters are allowed to do stupid things without it always being a minor plot hole (i.e. a stupidity). A quick news search of doctors accused of sexual harassment will show half a dozen stories this year alone, showing that doctors in real life act this way, therefore, it's not a mistake for a character to do it.
It is still stupidity... and the doctors in your search were also stupid.
I'm not sure how you're not getting this, or if you're being pedantic on purpose. There was no plot hole for his actions. Therefore, no mistake exist and the correction is valid. Being stupid isn't a valid stupidity entry. Being stupid to serve the plot is though (e.g. writing a drug name on the arm instead of telling someone your plan). People submit mistakes incorrectly and as long as it's not wildly inappropriate or nonsensical, it will be posted. Which is why there is the option to submit a correction. To clarify, being stupid, not a mistake. A character doing something they wouldn't (possibly because of the writer's lack of knowledge), character mistake. A character doing something that doesn't make sense that mildly serves the plot, stupidity. Something done that contradicts the plot or what's been established in-film, plot hole.
I'm willing to modify "stupidity" to "utter stupidity." [I'm too ignorant to be insulted.].
Then you're on the wrong site and you should create your own site.
I'd like a second opinion.
I'll give my opinion and I agree with Bishop73. This sounds more like a character exerting hubris than stupidity. If he sexually harassed an underling in front an attorney or a judge, or even other employees, then I think it would rise to the level of being a stupidity. The current President of the United States has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women, and he did so out of hubris because as he claims, his celebrity status gives him carte blanche to do so.
Sorry to say I concur with Bishop73, in that people do stupid things all the time in films, and we can't list them all! The stupidity section is just for plot-related issues - sort of "movie logic" things, like running upstairs in a horror film when they should run out the door. Yes people might do that in reality, which would be stupid, but they do it in a movie solely because it helps the plot / narrative. It's not strictly a plot hole, and it's arguably even a "mistake", which is why they're listed separately. In this case yes what he does is stupid, but it's a stupid thing which people in authority in reality do often, it's not solely an unreasonable or unlikely stupid action for the sake of the plot, if that makes sense. I've also realised that's not made clear when submitting a "stupidity", which is an oversight on my part - I'll amend that.
21st Sep 2020
Joker (2019)
Question: Why was this movie so controversial?
Answer: In a nutshell, it's because the film's protagonist is a mentally disturbed killer, and certain groups in America thought the film's violence would lead to copycat behavior.
I never got this aspect of the controversy, if anything, it goes to show what can happen when mental illness goes untreated.
I agree with you on that, but unfortunately, there's so many people, at least in the United States, that have no sense of nuance and are prone to knee-jerk reactions. They would rather condemn and blame different kinds of media for society's ills, rather than stop and look at the message something is trying to tell.
I read about the concern over possible copycat behavior in an on-line article; Phaneron's answer is correct.
Answer: Because the left thought it would encourage violence and mocked liberal run cities.The right thought the same on violence, it seemingly justified a mentally ill guy's actions, that it made white businessmen bad guys. Both sides in general only complained about Joker for attention.
6th Jul 2019
Logan (2017)
14th Jul 2018
Breaking Bad (2008)
Dead Freight - S5-E5
Plot hole: Preparing to steal methylamine from the train, Walt, Jesse and Mike measure off a predetermined distance from the railroad crossing, which happens to coincide with a handy arroyo, where they bury their tanks. Problem is that they couldn't have known that distance (calculated by knowing the position of the methylamine tanker car in the train) until Lydia told them. But she didn't call that info in until the night after they'd already buried the tanks.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: They were counting on the tankers being at the back of the train, far enough away and at a curved angle so that the conductors wouldn't see them, and the hoses they were using would have been long enough to reach the tankers on either side of the one they stole from. Their heist hinged on a lot of educated guesses and luck, especially because they would have had to abort if the tanker was at the front of the train, but being lucky doesn't make it a plot hole.
I'd have to respectfully disagree. When they paced off the distance to the trestle over the arroyo, they had a particular number in mind (814). It's not explained whether this number represented knowledge of how far back the tank car would be if the engine stopped at the crossing. But if it did, how could they have known that? Not even Lydia knew until much later. And why would they assume the tank car would be toward the back of the train? Lydia doesn't mention that. When she calls Walt, all she says is, "I've got it." And even if she were to tell him, at that point everything's in place for the heist to happen at the location where the tank are buried.
IIRC the crew contacted an expert on hazardous materials shipping for advice on the scene. Rail guidelines require tankers containing hazardous materials are at a minimum "six-deep", that is, six cars away from the engine. Lydia probably told them in advance how long the train would be in terms of cars, so they had a rough guideline for which three or four tankers could possibly contain the methylamine. From there, it seems like their hoses were long enough to get to any of the other cars.
The 814 feet was to ensure that the spot they chose would be far enough away from the conductors so as to not be seen. And they weren't assuming the tankers would be at the back, they were just hoping they would be. As I mentioned, if the tankers were at the front, they wouldn't have been able to move forward with the mission. Lydia told them they would only have 6 hours to prepare for the heist after she told them where the tanker would be. That wouldn't have been enough time for them to get an excavator out there and dig the holes for their own tanks to transfer the methylamine into, so they had to guess the best spot to do it ahead of time and hope that's where it would end up being.
27th Aug 2003
What's Eating Gilbert Grape (1993)
Corrected entry: When Gilbert is telling about the family and Endora at the beginning of the movie, he says that his father hung himself 17 years earlier. Yet, just seconds earlier he says he has a sister that has just turned 15. How did he father a child born two years after his death? There's no implication that she's a half-sister or adopted. (00:04:50)
Correction: Later in the movie, the truth comes out as Gilbert tells his girlfriend that his father just walked out and never came back.
The dialogue in the scene in question suggests that their father walked out, but later returned to their house to commit suicide. Gilbert specifically says "He was just hangin' there." We also see Arnie sitting next to his father's grave at Ken Carver's funeral, with his date of death reading October 13, 1978. If we assume the movie takes place in 1993, then that actually allows for Ellen to have been conceived or even been born before the father's death, though it would render Gilbert's statement that he died 17 years earlier a character mistake.
Correction: Amy could be close to turning 16, and Gilbert could have rounded up on the years his father's been deceased. Maybe it was 16 years and 7 months, so he just said 17.
1st Feb 2014
The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Revealing mistake: Naomi opens her legs in their daughter's room and tells Jordan she's not wearing panties, but she's actually wearing some, as we can see in a shot seconds later.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: She is teasing him, goading him, trying to make him find out for himself whether she is going commando or not.
4th Apr 2006
From Hell (2001)
Question: Why is it a "known fact" that Mary Kelley was killed by Jack the Ripper? Her murder differs in many ways from the others. She was killed indoors, she wasn't wearing any clothes, her body was so savaged that she was unrecognisable. The other murders took place outdoors with victims fully dressed and only partly savaged. Considering the number of violent deaths that took place in London at this time (most of them by slashing the throat) she could have been murdered by anybody. I know Abberline was called to the scene of the crime but that doesn't prove the Ripper actually did it and Abberline was called to more murder scenes than just the five official Ripper ones. What makes people so sure that Jack the Ripper killed Mary Kelley?
Answer: As the Ripper was never caught and interrogated, it can never be said with absolute certainty that Kelly was one of his victims. Her death does, however, fit the pattern of Ripper murders quite well with regard to time, general location, methodology and class of victim. There was also a noted trend of increasing levels of mutilation as the murders went on, so, while the damage was considerably more extensive that the previous killings, that also fits with a noted trend of the Ripper murder - it's also worth considering that, as Kelly was apparently his final kill, he may well have wanted to sign off with a particularly grand statement, hence the extreme level of mutilation to the body. This would also explain why the attack uncharacteristically took place indoors - what Jack had in mind for Kelly would take a considerable period of undisturbed time, more than could be guaranteed in an on-street attack. It's also believed that Jack had been interrupted during the murder of Elizabeth Stride on his previous night of violence some weeks earlier - this could also have led him to alter his modus operandi to ensure that this would not be repeated. So, no, it cannot be stated categorically that Kelly was a victim of Jack the Ripper, however the evidence suggests a high probability that this was the case, enough so that many people consider this to be a fact.
It wasn't Mary Jane Kelly.
The question pertained to the real-life Ripper murders, not what we see in this film. It was indeed Mary Kelly in real life.
18th Nov 2020
The Naked Gun 2½: The Smell of Fear (1991)
Question: During the scene when Frank and Jane are making a clay pot, what caused the potter's wheel to go berserk and splatter them with clay? (00:50:18)
Answer: The foot pedal controls the speed of the wheel. Frank puts his foot on top of Jane's foot and pushes the pedal down all the way. The rapid acceleration and the fact they took their hands off the clay caused it to go everywhere.
Wouldn't that hurt Jane as Frank's foot is applying pressure to hers while pressing down on the pedal?
Not really, you can see his foot gently presses on top of hers, and both their feet cause the pedal to slope towards the floor, which would decrease the amount of pressure Frank's foot applies to Jane's. On top of that, different people have different pain thresholds.
This is not exactly related to the question asked, but part of the scene that I could never really figure out. It showed that Jane made something in the shape of a square out of a piece of clay. What did she make and how could she have made it in only seconds with her eyes closed? I also don't quite understand how the clay could've possibly gotten to where she obtained it to begin with (asking in a way of abiding by the guidelines).
The scene cuts to them shaping clay without showing any of the set up. So we don't see how it got to that point, so she didn't do it in a second with her eyes closed. It's just a parody of the scene from "Ghost." In real life, using a clay wheel makes shaping clay faster, although it takes practice. If you put your hand, or a tool, on top and press down, you create a hole (which we aren't shown). It looks like Jane is just making a vase.
I really apologize, but I was referring to after the vase was inadvertently destroyed. It was after Frank apparently had a bodybuilder's physique (which was an obvious body double joke). Then it showed Jane making something out of clay in such a short time with her eyes closed. So sorry about that. Thank you for the reply.
The fact she made it so quickly was a gag, but she makes an ashtray. I would say the joke about that is people will often smoke after sex (or there's a perceived joke they do). It seems the clay comes off Frank's body, like it was there when the clay went everywhere.
Thank you very much. Yes, I never could get that part of the joke no matter how many times I have watched it. Thanks again for the help.
Answer: It wouldn't take a lot of pressure to operate the pedal, probably less than a car's accelerator.
23rd Oct 2020
Spider-Man (1994)
Secret Wars, Chapter 3: Doom - S5-E11
Other mistake: This series is in the same continuity as the other Marvel animated series from around the same time - X-Men, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man, and Fantastic Four - by virtue of each aforementioned show crossing over with at least one of the others. However, in Fantastic Four, Dr. Doom had a German accent, and in this episode he has a Russian accent.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: It was a part of the character's redesign. The writer of Spider-Man, John Semper Jr, disliked the Fantastic Four cartoon to the point that he not only changed characters' designs but their voice actors as well.
24th Oct 2020
Home Alone (1990)
Corrected entry: If the water Kevin poured on the steps froze almost instantly, it would be too cold outside for the tar he put on some steps to still be soft and sticky enough to adhere to Marvin's feet.
Correction: The tarred steps are inside the house, in the basement. The temperature outside is irrelevant as far as they are concerned.
I was thinking it was done outside in the dark. Now I'd question if tar would stay that sticky - even inside a basement. When the temperature outside is below freezing, my basement is relatively cold.
14th Oct 2010
The Town (2010)
Corrected entry: There is no such company as "Boston Ambulance" (as seen on the ambulance and uniforms in the park scene). The city is serviced by Boston EMS, which also doesn't use any of the converted van-style ambulances.
Correction: Because this is a fictional film, and not being billed as a documentary, I don't see how this qualifies as a mistake. In the Boston of the movie, Boston Ambulance IS a company, and it doesn't change throughout the film.
Are there any mistakes that couldn't be excused by the movie taking place in a fictional world?
Yes, and it depends entirely on the type of world a given movie is set in. This movie is set in the real world, and in the real world, a company called Boston Ambulance could in fact exist. Therefore, artistic license dictates that this isn't a mistake. If this same movie showed the sun rising in the west and setting in the east, that would be a mistake, because despite being a work of fiction, it is contrary to the real-world setting the film establishes.
The flower shop in Charlestown isn't real either, does that make it a mistake? There are fictional companies and people in all movies, that doesn't make them mistakes.
2nd Jul 2019
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Plot hole: There are two timelines in the X-Men franchise - the original films and the prequels, up until Days of Future past, which alters the future, and at the end reveals that Jean Grey, Professor X and Cyclops are all alive, rather than dying as they did in X-Men 3. The "new" timeline is then followed in Apocalypse and this movie, giving them a bit of leeway to make changes, much like the new Star Trek movies. Only problem is...Jean Grey dies in this movie! So no way her older self can be around in DoFP.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think you might have missed the final shot in the movie, when the camera pans up from Charles and Erik playing chess and the Phoenix firebird is shown flying across the sky/stratosphere, implying that, much like the Phoenix's legendary namesake, Jean had risen from the ashes so to speak. There is precedent for this in the comics, plus there were supposed to be more X-Men movies after this one until the Disney/Fox merger happened.
Yes, but she even said she evolved beyond earth, so that is basically saying that she died. Or she isn't on earth anymore.
Suggested correction: Bryan Singer confirmed that the end of Days of Future Past with Jean Grey being alive is one of many timelines, there are more than 2 timelines in this universe, meaning that despite all the X-Men being alive in the future at the of Days of Future Past, they can still all die in other movies like in Logan and Dark Phoenix.
31st Aug 2020
Speed (1994)
Plot hole: It is never definitively stated if the bomb is tied directly to the axle, triggered by the speedometer instrumentation or throttle. Regardless, as long as the wheels keep spinning above 50mph the bomb will not explode by design. This means that if you lifted the wheels of the bus off the ground or you bottom out, you could keep accelerating without any speed at all. This could be accomplished in any number of ways. One example would be driving on grass and keeping the tires spinning.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: And that would accomplish precisely nothing. They know Payne is watching them and he explicitly stated no-one is allowed to get off the bus or he will detonate it, only making an exception for the injured driver. What good is finding a way to keep the wheels in motion if everyone is still stuck on the bus?
The mistake is suggesting that you basically find a way to stop the bus but keep the wheels spinning such as grounding it on a hill. Then while the bus is stationary, just (I'm assuming here) put a weight on the accelerator to keep the wheels spinning and then everyone just hop off and walk away. However, you're correct in that Howard is watching the live feed so would just blow the bomb when people got off.
I fully understood what the entry was suggesting, but Payne's demand that everyone stays on the bus under penalty of detonation voids it. Even if that wasn't the case, finding a way to somehow stop the bus but keeping the wheels spinning (such as lifting it with a helicopter) would be a logistical nightmare in that scenario. Their plans to drive on the otherwise unoccupied freeway and then circle the airport runway were much more practical.
The other glaring problem with "stopping the bus while keeping the wheels moving" is those pesky laws of physics. Momentum, kinetic energy, and inertia would all prevent that from happening under any circumstance that could be quickly cobbled together by any police department. I'm sure physicists and engineers could come up with something given a few months and a buttload of money, but for this example you could consider it impossible - especially without causing a lot of passenger injuries.
11th Sep 2020
Boy Meets World (1993)
Stupidity: When Eric, dressed in drag, tearfully sits down next to Topanga, she asks him if they know each other because she doesn't realise it is him. Topanga's known Eric practically her entire life, and she is one of the smarter characters on the show. Given that Mr. Feeny instantly recognized that Eric and Jack were dressed up as women, Topanga should have recognized it immediately as well. (00:10:40)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This is a comedy show and this scene is played for laughs. A character not recognizing another character in drag when it is obvious to the audience has been a joke for centuries. Also, on a realistic level, recognizing faces has nothing to do with intelligence.
There's a difference between not recognizing someone you might barely know and being fooled by an obvious disguise worn by someone you've known for 20 years. I fully acknowledge that this scene is played for laughs and that this is a common trope used in movies and television, but the fact that the show went out of its way to show that Mr. Feeny instantly saw through their disguises demonstrates that show itself acknowledged how ridiculous his disguise was, and it was foolish on Topanga's part for not seeing through it.
6th Sep 2020
Deadpool 2 (2018)
Question: How come Deadpool is aware of the fourth wall, but none of the other characters in the X-Men movies are?
Answer: That's one of his superpowers, "Comic Awareness" (sometimes called 4th Wall or Medium Awareness). This is something that Deadpool has in the comics and was incorporated into the films. Other than being a framing tool and to be funny, I don't know if the creator, Fabian Nicieza, or any writers have said why they gave Deadpool that power.
3rd Sep 2020
The Mask of Zorro (1998)
Corrected entry: There would be no movie if Rafael had just killed Diego. He could have even just left instructions to the jailer that his newest prisoner is the famous Zorro himself. Maybe keep him in solitary confinement forever.
Correction: Rafael explicitly told Diego that he wanted him to live and suffer with the knowledge that he has lost everything that he holds dear, including his daughter.
1st Sep 2020
Game of Thrones (2011)
Corrected entry: In a show about zombies, dragons and magic, Littlefinger's survival is the least believable thing. He fell into the hands of the likes of Catelyn, Renly and even Cersei, but they always spared him because of paltry reasons. By season 6 he's practically daring anyone to kill him, but they never do. Sansa, Brienne and Jon Snow were all itching to kill him, but they always stopped for no reason. This is a poor and artificial way of prolonging drama.
Correction: That's just your opinion, not a stupidity in the show.
Correction: Littlefinger is extremely wealthy and resourceful and has spent the entirety of the show (and even before the start of it) orchestrating events behind the scenes that make him more and more powerful, including the murders of Jon Arryn and Joffrey. Characters aren't in a position to straight up kill him because he controls the Vale army and has influence over Robyn Arryn. It isn't until his betrayal of Ned and Catelyn is finally revealed that the Vale army and the Lords of the Eyrie no longer have his back, which gives Sansa and Arya a reason to execute him without fear of reprisal.
Littlefinger only told Sansa about the Knights of the Vale after she had faltered again in her promise to kill him. That's just terrible negotiation. He's not allowed to die until the writers say so.
He told her his army would aid her. That doesn't mean only she knows he has the army. It's undoubtedly known by the Lords and Ladies across Westeros that Littlefinger married Lysa Arryn and became the de facto Lord Regent and Protector of the Vale after Lysa's death. And saying he's not allowed to die until the writers say so isn't even a valid argument. Every fictional character that dies does so when the writers say so.
Correction: Just because the powers that be don't like or trust Littlefinger doesn't mean they don't think he is useful for their own goals. They try and include him in their own schemes, but he played the game of thrones better than they did.
Join the mailing list
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.