Corrected entry: Mary may have "fought hard" to gain full custody of Ellie, but - even if Charlie did "leave them" to be with his "lover" - Charlie should have still gotten at least court-ordered regular supervised visits with his daughter over the years, not shut off from maintaining a relationship with his biological daughter.
TedStixon
19th Mar 2023
The Whale (2022)
19th Mar 2023
The Whale (2022)
Plot hole: Other than being an on-line college instructor who "works a lot", the status of Charlie's employment was not revealed. There's a big difference between being a full-time tenure-track instructor (with a fringe benefits package that would include health insurance) versus part-time/adjunct faculty (with low pay per course and little or no benefits). Charlie was able to save $120K in 8 years, suggesting he was full-time and should have had health as well as life insurance and a retirement plan.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Not necessarily. My uncle works as a college professor (typically part-time or single-semester gigs) and has been able to set aside pretty good money by controlling his spending. Granted, not $120K... but my uncle also spends more money than Charlie on leisure things. (Also, according to a quick Google search, a part-time college professor often makes as much as $40K+ per year depending on different factors... pretty easy to save money if all you're spending is rent and food).
19th Mar 2023
The Whale (2022)
Plot hole: After sending the offensive message to his students, Charlie got on-line with them (within hours or the same day?) and said, "Well, your complaints have been heard. I've been replaced..." IF an on-line college instructor could be terminated and replaced as quickly as Charlie was, it would follow that he would no longer be able to access the on-line course to communicate with the students like he did. (01:39:55)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I think this is based on too much assumption. Any sort-of ban would likely be entire dependent on whatever system they're using for their online class. And it's entirely plausible he'd still be able to access his account mere hours later, even if the call has already been made to replace him.
I worked for the Defence department in Australia and it was a running gag that eighteen months after I had left my online access to my account was still open, allowing me access to highly classified documentation, including emails. Mistakes happen.
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.
Correction: Fathers often get the 'short end of the stick' in custody battles. It is entirely possible that Charlie was denied even supervised visitation. Especially if the judge was extremely conservative.
wizard_of_gore ★
Especially if the judge was conservative and anti-gay. Plenty of them around.
Charlie was not physically or sexually abusive toward his daughter Ellie (two major reasons to deny any visitation), so I have to disagree.
KeyZOid
I'm not sure how you could disagree. Women are 4X more likely to get primary custody than men, and it's really not unheard of for a parent to get little-to-no custody/visitation even if they weren't abusive to the child. Ex. My father was not abusive towards me, but I only saw him for a few hours every other week because that's just how the arrangement worked out. (Which in retrospect was good because he had other issues and I shouldn't have been around him more than that. But at the time it hurt.)
TedStixon