Plot hole: Durotan's clan is the Frostwolf clan, orcs who ride big white wolves. The problem is...they are riding those wolves when they are in the human world, but those huge wolves made to be orc mounts were not with them when they crossed the portal from their homeworld. Unless the human world has the same wolves and they managed to tame them in record time, it's inexplicable.
lionhead
12th Sep 2019
Warcraft (2016)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Once the portal opens hordes of orcs start running into the portal. Just because you didn't see any wolves among them doesn't mean there weren't any. They obviously brought their wolves with them. They probably entered through last along with some food and tools they might need.
We see the portal close once the sorcerer blows life into the baby and the whole invasion force is on screen. Those few warriors are all that comes through the portal, which makes sense given what he said about having limited energy to transfer only a few people.
No, no. I thought you were going to say that. Look at it again, when the portal closes there are orcs standing all around it, cheering. There are hundreds of them, you saw scores of orcs run into the portal as well. Surely there are wolves amongst them as well.
There is a line of orcs around the portal, yes (still few in the context of the invasion), but there are no wolves there either, no wolves heard howling or anything. I don't know: no wolves shown running into the portail, no wolves shown exiting the portal, no wolves standing amongst those around the portal, nor heard, not even with the chieftan of the tribe that rides them. I find it easier to think that they just made them up on the spot in pure "fridge logic" to homage the game (they are not seen in the movie much nor they have a really important role) rather than postulating that perhaps there's a wolf herder guy who brought along a few dozens wolves that happen to be hidden now amongst the trees.
It may be easier to believe that, but doesn't make it impossible. Just because you didn't see them doesn't mean they weren't there. It's plausible, therefore no error and certainly not a plot hole, certainly not since you agree they don't have an important role.
I don't find it plausible since there isn't the faintest hint of it shown in the movie in a scenario where we are supposed to see all their forces: if it did not make such a point of that, I am sure I could agree with you. It's not a matter of filling in blanks left by the movie, it's about contradicting what was on screen. It's easily (or logically, if you will: I use the word 'easily' in an Occam's razor sort of way) explained (and not justified) by the wolves being 'fanservice' homage in a couple scenes, which made them easy to overlook (because they forgot or because they did not care, we can't know that) when it came to planning the invasion scenes. I believe it fits the definition of 'plot hole' because however unimportant and cosmetic of an element it is, giving a character or a group of characters something that was not there before 'breaks' the movie world as represented. I am however fine with any other category, I wouldn't split hairs on that and I welcome your different opinion. :-).
3rd Nov 2017
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Rhinitis Revelation - S5-E6
Other mistake: When Mary is rubbing VapoRub on Sheldon's chest, she makes a comment that last time she saw that there was no hair, to which Sheldon replies "Yeah it filled in last year." In Season 1, Episode 11, Penny rubs VapoRub on Sheldon's chest and a very clear remark about chest hair was made. Season 1 for the show was 4 years ago.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Sheldon is probably joking when he tells Mary his chest hair filled in the previous year.
He doesn't understand sarcasm, hence, doesn't know when to be sarcastic.
And nearly all instances of Bazinga are not used in a funny circumstance. Indicating poor judgement and lack of knowledge regarding jokes.
They were funny to him. And to the audience.
24th May 2018
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Question: Since the board fired Norman in the last movie, how come Harry became the new owner after he died?
Answer: Despite being removed as CEO, Norman would still own the stock, which would then be passed on to Harry.
Did Harry have to take over or was it his decision?
It's always a choice to become CEO of a company.
Answer: Well Harry did want to keep his father's "Honor" and quoting from the first film, "become half of what he is." He didn't want to disappoint his father even after death. Or has a bigger goal in mind. But he did it on his own.
2nd Sep 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why wasn't Fury in the final battle? Or Hill?
Answer: Being regular humans without powers or highly advanced technology, they may not have been able to fight properly against Thanos' forces.
Neither did the Asgardians.
The Asgardians were there and they are superhumans.
The average Asgardians are all established to be vastly stronger, more powerful and faster than humans. Their soldiers even more so.
The remaining Asgardians were there.
Answer: Spoilers! Given what we see in Spider-Man: Far From Home it may be that they were offworld doing other vital work.
Answer: Since any reason given would be speculation, the easiest explanation is that they had something else to do in this, the one and only future where the Avengers won against Thanos.
6th Sep 2019
Wonder Woman (2009)
Other mistake: When the Amazons interrogate Steve they don't know the meaning of the word "crap" yet they know one of the definitions of the word "rack."
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Just because they understand some slang, doesn't mean they should understand all slang.
Well if they're an ancient race then how do they know of the use of the word rack regarding female anatomy? One of them went out into the modern world and learned this? Hera tell them this? Maybe they got internet or a modern dictionary?
Well obviously they know stuff about the modern world. Diana could speak Dutch fluently, not Old Dutch either, but modern Dutch. So they do get information or else she wouldn't have known that. This would include slang.
19th Aug 2009
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Question: Who killed Frank Bryce? I doubt that was Voldemort, because he doesn't have a body at that moment.
Chosen answer: Oh, but it IS Voldemort. He is small like a hairless, feeble child, but he has a body nonetheless. When Nagini tells Voldemort, who is sitting in the chair (beside Barty Crouch Jr), that Frank Bryce is in the corridor, he tells Wormtail to step aside before he himself performs the Avada Kedavra with his own wand. We see Voldemort's entire body as Wormtail drops him into the cauldron with the 'rebirthing potion', which gives him the new adult form.
But who killed Cedric? Is it still Voldemort or Wormtail. I know Voldemort gives the order but Wormtail has the wand.
Yeah that's always very confusing but the idea is that since Wormtail did it on orders by Voldemort, it was with Voldemort's wand and that Wormtail basically was a slave of Voldemort so Voldemort killed Cedric. Womrtail hasn't really got a will of his own anymore, including the point he is choked to death with the magical hand Voldemort gave him (in the books).
Wormtail did it on Voldemort's orders, so technically it was him.
28th Jul 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Corrected entry: In one scene in the common room the song 'Boys Will Be Boys' by 'The Ordinary Boys' is playing, released in 2006, but this film is set in the 1990s, before the song was released.
Correction: The films are separate from the books - the films have never stated what year they're set.
As far as I know, the movies don't explicitly state their years, but the years can be inferred but are a mess. For example, the graves for the Potters say they died in 1981, so if Harry was one year old when they died, it was about 1991 when the first movie starts. This date match the book's dates. It does raise a problem with the 7th movie though, since we see the Millennium Bridge collapse, which wasn't opened until 2000, and the Dursleys driving a 2008 model car. I think the producers didn't say a date so didn't worry much about consistency.
Movies are separate from the books but they are set in the same time as them.
Nope. For a start we see the Millennium Bridge in the movies, which wasn't opened until 2000.
The millennium bridge being in the movie is actually a mistake, as its supposed to be 1996. I think its listed.
7th Sep 2019
The Big Bang Theory (2007)
The Hamburger Postulate - S1-E5
Character mistake: When Sheldon knocks on Penny's door to seek advice about the tie on Leonard's doorknob, he does not use his typical triple knock. (00:07:43)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
First time he knocks 3 times is in Episode 2 of Season 1. First time knocking 3 times followed by saying the name is episode 10 of Season 1. The ritual of 3 knocks and 3 times saying the name and then stopping is Episode 5 of season 2.
Sheldon knocks three times because he once walked into his parents bedroom and saw his father with another woman. He's been doing the triple knock since he was a teenager.
Yet, he didn't in the show till Season 2. Funny ain't it?
Suggested correction: A one-time lapse in someone's usual behavior does not count as a "character mistake", even in the case of someone given to ritualistic behavior as Sheldon is.
Ah, but in an episode he explains he had developed this particular ritual at age 13 after walking into his parent's bedroom without knocking and seeing his father having sex with another woman. He says he started knocking 3 times since then and would never forget. So its not consistent and a mistake as this is not the only example one can name.
30th Aug 2019
Dark Phoenix (2019)
Corrected entry: In the labs, the Beast is looking at colour LCD monitors, they weren't available in 1992.
Correction: They weren't available in the real world in 1992. This is science fiction though, and there are mutants both in the films and the comics they are based on that are extremely intelligent and innovative. The character Forge for example, who does not appear in the films but may exist offscreen, has the mutant ability to basically invent anything. Beast is also intelligent enough to invent LCD screens a lot sooner than we had them. He did create Cerebro in the early 1960's after all, which is a piece of technology that we in the real world to this day do not possess.
Next to that the first LCD screens came at the end of the 80's though in low quality and small. By 1992 they were very expensive but a lot better. The actual invention of the LCD technology was as far back as the 1960's.
Agreed that the Beast had the smarts to develop LCD screens but the story should be based on reality. For example if the Beast had pulled out an iPhone, it wouldn't fit the narrative, but the Beast would easily be able to construct such a device should he wish to.
Why should the story be based on reality? The movie doesn't take place in the real world. Should the president in the movie be George Bush since that would have reflected reality? The LCD monitors serve a purpose for the scene. While it technically wouldn't have been a mistake for Beast to have in invented one, an iPhone wouldn't serve any purpose for any of the scenes in the movie.
30th Aug 2019
Spider-Man 2 (2004)
Corrected entry: Doc Ock robs a bank to get funds to rebuild his machine. He seems to take only three or four bank bags, which, given the size of the machine, doesn't seem like enough to buy all the parts to rebuild it.
Correction: Let's say it wasn't enough, perhaps because Spider-Man intervening prevented him from taking more. He could have robbed another bank or an armored truck offscreen. Showing that, however, would just drag the movie down. Since he has all the equipment he needs, we have to accept that he acquired enough money to pay for it all.
Correction: Just because it "doesn't seem" like enough doesn't make it a plot hole.
Yeah you don't really know what is inside and what seems to be inside are golden coins which are probably worth quite a lot more than bank notes would. There could even be jewellry inside.
22nd Sep 2017
Star Trek: First Contact (1996)
Question: Why didn't they just tell Cochrane about the Borg? Why didn't Cochrane want to be famous?
Answer: Telling him about the Borg would violate the Prime Directive by giving too much information about the future. The Borg were not supposed to be in that timeline, unlike the Vulcans who, historically, made First Contact with humans at that time. Cochrane does not say why he doesn't want to be famous. There are many reasons people shun celebrity-some are shy and prefer privacy, others don't want to deal with the pressure of having to live up to a reputation that may be inaccurate, it interferes with the work they are trying to achieve, and so on.
Actually, they did tell him about the Borg. You can tell they told him about the Borg because he said a group of cybernetic creatures from the future have traveled back through time to enslave the human race.
They told him a general story about what's going on. They don't reveal their name, where they are from or their nature.
What harm could telling Cochrane about the Borg possibly do?
That could potentially change the timeline too much. They want to preserve the timeline they came from.
I'd care more about saving humans from being killed, or enslaved, than about preserving timelines.
It might set humanity on the wrong path, that will lead to more deaths. For example, it could prevent the federation alliance. One can only imagine how the Alpha quadrant will survive Romulan, Klingon and Dominion attacks without the alliance.
"Telling him about the Borg would violate the prime directive by giving information about the future." Which is more important, obeying the prime directive, or stopping the Borg from enslaving the human race?
They are first attempting to give as little information as possible to anyone in the past in an attempt to follow the Temporal Prime Directive. Any small change could have larger changes in the future via the butterfly effect.
Answer: When Riker and Cochrane are doing the pre-flight check in the ship, Riker is talking about the historical significance of this launch. Cochrance tells him to shut up, he is tired of everyone he meets telling him what a hero he is, and what this launch means to mankind. He says, "You want why I want I'm doing this. Money and women. I want to buy an island and be served drinks by native girls. I hate space travel. I take trains." However, once the Vulcans land, he truly realises what he's done.
Answer: Cochrane wanted to be famous but in order to get money and women. Cochrane didn't want the hero title and was sick of hearing about all the good he had done.
23rd Aug 2019
Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019)
Stupidity: Assuming that Stark had absolute faith in being able to bring Peter back (otherwise, not much point making a dead person his heir), he had an army of killer drones standing by in space, but he made no use of it during the dramatic battle against Thanos, when you'd expect he'd use every resource available.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Besides the fact it's a possibility these killer drones (or the satellite) were not yet ready when Thanos attacked, since Tony likes to have his new gadgets be build autonomously, I think it's safe to assume that during the time Thanos' spaceship was in the air the drones had little chance to impact the battlefield as that thing had excellent AA as proven when Captain Marvel came in from orbit. Once the spaceship was destroyed however I'd take it Tony was kinda busy with fighting Thanos and keeping him from the gauntlet to be thinking about any drones or any other protocol he had in space (I doubt he had only 1 satellite with weapons technology on board). Next to that I doubt the drones would have any use keeping Thanos away from the stones anyway, and them fighting the rest of Thanos' army was only second priority (and they were winning).
I actually agree (and upvote) the consideration that there's no hard evidence that the drones were fully operational before the event of Endgame, as I figure that the orbital facility should have some in-built technology to replace any drone lost. He can build new armors in minutes, drones should be assembled quite readily, so the 'big' part would have been designing the 'ship', but I won't get into speculations about the logistics involved, it'd be a wild tangent. I maintain that in this movie we're introduced to quasi-instantaneous anywhere-in-the-world tactical intervention capabilities Stark seemingly had, being presented as his heritage. You postulate that he could have even more space weaponry lurking around, and it wouldn't be out of place since this movie makes the reach of his technology appear truly global in a much different way than it was before, where we saw armors pieces fly from his Malibu garage or something. So, if he was too busy dealing with the messy fight on the ground to be bothered sending an order to the huge swarm of expendable decoys and hunter-seekers he (likely) had at the ready, well, he was surely under-utilizing them (hence the 'stupidity').
Perhaps I was a bit too generous when I said he had plenty of other weapon equipment in orbit. Ever since Iron Man 3 Tony hasn't been building a lot, nothing too elaborate anyway and after infinity war you gotta remember he has been living quietly and peacefully with his family the past 5 years without building anything probably. Even though he was pissed off they didn't build the shield around the earth he was just too tired and depressed to be the guardian, also believing I think that Thanos was right in some way and the dangers for Earth were over, so there was no need for The Avengers. Once he decides to help bring everyone back (and thus Peter) he must have ordered EDITH to build the satellite as a last bit of useful tech to leave his succesor in the case of his death. Last point I want to make which is a bit of a stretch but when Thanos' ship arrives it arrives high in the air and starts and attack on the ground. It's a good possibility the attack was directed at any threats in orbit as well.
Suggested correction: Using hundreds of weaponized drones in that battle would actually be an awful strategy, as the battlefield was so densely packed that almost any member of the Avengers or their sorcerer, Asgardian and Ravager allies could have been accidentally killed by one.
With the huge caveat that this entry is simply "stupidity" and not a legitimate plot hole because it involves a character decision, he could have used them to temporarily distract Thanos during their 3 on 1 battle, attack his ship, provide cover and tactical support during the chase for the gems and whatnot, his software is more than capable of providing valid targets.
8th Apr 2019
Shazam! (2019)
Question: What is the actual reason given why the police couldn't find Billy's mom? Just the fact his mom didn't want to find him and left doesn't mean the cops would stop looking. It's hard to imagine a 5 year old isn't able to tell the cops his address, where he goes to school or where he lives in general. Teachers, neighbours, his physician or dentist, classmates, all can tell where the mom is. Next to that isn't his dad in prison and thus easy to find?
Answer: He was a baby when he was abandoned - all he knew about his mother was her name, not her birth date or social security number. He didn't know anything about his father and his mother went back to her maiden name. In case you're wondering not everybody has their DNA taken.
He knew his full name. He's a legitimate son born in wedlock. They would have easily tracked down the father who is an inmate: that is on top of what the original poster mentioned, such as his home address or other minimal information. Lionhead, I believe this belongs in the Plot Holes section rather than simply the Questions section: I am not informed about Pennsylvania's laws for child abandonment, but I think it's rather unlikely that someone could just drop their kid in the middle of a crowd and get away with it entirely, especially when the kid knows his own full name.
I'm not too eager to put it in the plot holes section, because it is plausible I suppose that she disappeared willingly and they couldn't find her specifically. But you address the right point I was trying to make that the cops won't simply stop looking for his mother. It's a crime to abandon your child and they will look up and question a lot of people. And I mean a lot of people to find her. Even if there is literally no family besides mom and dad, the dad will be found since he is in prison. He won't be able to help much but contact will be maintained, even if he doesn't want it.
The thing is, they don't even have to question a lot of people since the kid is not a newborn left on the steps of a church or something: he was able to provide his own full name to the authorities. So it's absolutely straightforward for the police to see who his parents are - although it should be noted that he was born in a different state, I don't think it should be a particularly complicated research for the authorities.
10th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: Why didn't Hulk use the Infinity Gauntlet to snap Thanos and his army? He was able to snap everybody that Thanos killed and survived, so he would have survived another snap.
Answer: The gauntlet fell off after his first snap, then Thanos arrived from the past and destroyed the building, separating them. Hulk never got near the gauntlet and the stones during the ensuing battle, so he didn't have an opportunity to try a second snap to destroy Thanos.
Really what they should have done was pulled the stones off the gauntlet and separated them again, and not run around with a fully assembled and powered up Gauntlet for Thanos to grab.
I agree.
That would mean they had to touch them, and nobody besides Hulk, Thor and Carol could touch one without dying.
Ordinary humans can't just grab an infinity stone. Even when Thanos takes the power stone out of gauntlet you see it start to destroy them.
Only the Power Stone has been shown to kill normal people who try to hold it. Hawkeye literally held the Soul Stone in his hand in this movie.
Because he made the necessary sacrifice. Anyone else touching it, big problem. Could be an exception though. The power, reality and space gems have been proven to be untouchable and killing anyone who does (with exceptions though). Time gem is very carefully handled as well so I wouldn't touch that one either. Mind gem, who knows?
I don't recall the Time Stone killing anyone who touched it. The only example I can think of was the Red Skull presumably being killed when he handled the Tesseract, but was in actuality teleported to Vormir. The Reality Stone has a will of its own, so someone could feasibly handle it without harm. You're wonder about the Mind Stone is correct, as no human character was shown in any movie to have handled it directly. Overall though, I would say that I disagree with someone trying to remove a stone from the gauntlet, as one stone could easily be lost, and Thanos could still kill every hero at the battle even with one or more stones missing.
The reality stone attaches itself to anyone touching it like a parasite and slowly kills them. I'd say it's a bad idea to touch it. As for the time stone only the ancient one and Hulk actually touched it and there is reason Strange handles it carefully and without touching it. As for the Red skull, don't really know if he is really alive on Vormir. Who knows what the tesseract did to him?
Whether or not Red Skull is still alive is an interesting topic, but either way, I'd argue that while the Tesseract transported him, it itself is not what made him in his current state, but rather his curse to guard the Soul Stone and the planet of Vormir itself, as it is a dominion of death as Nebula stated.
3rd May 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: In the final battle Captain Marvel saves Spider-Man and gets the Gauntlet but she didn't use it. She probably has power enough to use the Gauntlet and save everyone, without sacrificing herself.
Correction: This is merely speculation. You don't know that she is powerful enough to survive and neither does she. The plan was to get the stones back where they belong. With the stones gone, they would have been able to fight off Thanos and his army. Keeping the stones around is a massive risk, and it has been shown in the comics that if you lack the willpower to use them correctly, it can have devastating effects on you and the area around you. It simply isn't worth the risk, especially with the less advanced Iron Gauntlet which was not made by the Dwarves.
Correction: But the plan was never to use the gauntlet again. They only wanted to bring everyone back. They didn't anticipate Thanos arriving. Not knowing someone could even use the gauntlet again the plan was made to keep Thanos away from it and beat him this time. Using it whilst not knowing if that person would survive would be too dangerous, Thanos could get to it. Tony improvised the last part where he decided to wear the gems and snap, as a last resort.
Another question would be, was Captain Marvel going to just fly into the time tunnel without a nanosuit or quantum tracker? It sure looked like it. And then Thanos, who is behind Captain Marvel, is able to throw his sword past her into the van to destroy the tunnel. If Carol has the power to fly into orbit, she can fly faster than a thrown object at ground level.
Thanos can throw a sword pretty fast I'd say, being strong enough to battle a god and easily overpower Hulk. But yes, She was going to fly into it to get the gauntlet and stones away from Thanos forever, that was the plan. However Carol is going to handle the situation of going through the tunnel without any plan is up to her, she is pretty powerful though and could find a way I'd say.
5th Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Corrected entry: One of the big sources of tension in the heist is the fact that they supposedly have a limited number of Pym particles, as stated by Scott Lang. So after the test run they only have enough for everyone to take one round trip through time. Cap and Tony use their return supply to go to 1970, which is why they needed to steal more particles to get back. However, Ant-Man's shrinking tech is also based on the Pym particles, and his shrinking suit seems to work without restriction in 2012. They also have enough to both shrink the Benetar in 2023 and re-grow it in 2014. So either Scott is mistaken about how many Pym particles he has, or he is lying about them. And before someone says they calculated the number of particles it would take for the shrinking during the mission before assigning them to the team members, Scott discusses the limited supply before they had any plan of what they were going to do in the past.
Correction: Shrinking for those more common actions would not eat up as many Pym particles as say, shrinking enough to go sub atomic, as well as controlling where you're going and doing time travel.
This was addressed in the post. Scott calculated all the Pym particles he had on hand and said there was enough for 1 round trip each and 2 tests. Not '1 round trip, 2 tests and an indeterminate amount of shrinking during the mission which we haven't planned yet.' Plus, he uses a whole vial in mistakenly shrinking before the test, after which he says there's enough for 1 test, not 2. So, maybe there are enough extra Pym particles to do some shrinking after they plan the mission, but this is never brought up and would seem to contradict what Scott has already said about it and what we see onscreen about how many Pym particles it takes just to shrink (though the shrinking tech has never really been consistently portrayed in any of the films featuring it). So, a justification for one perceived mistake just raises a question somewhere else. There's just something off about how the film conveys the circumstances of using the Pym particles, however it is parsed.
Thanos has access to technology centuries beyond Earth. It's definitely possible his crew of henchmen were able to replicate the particles.
To add to Quantom X's correction: Thanos' men reverse engineered the Pym particles to allow evil Nebula to return with the others and pull the ship through the timestream. Remember it can take as long as they want to reverse engineer it before sending evil Nebula back, nobody would notice. There were never any more particles used than what Scott had available. Either more were obtained (from Pym himself in 1970's), or more made (by Thanos' men). I agree with the original correction that the small size shrinking obviously doesn't use up as much particles as the subatomic shrinking does and that's why he could do it.
The shrinking tech for Scott and the shrinking tech for objects are two different things, remember he has those red and blue discs that shrink and grow things and he uses the vial in the suit.
2nd Aug 2019
Avengers: Endgame (2019)
Question: If Captain America had to go back to return the infinity stones to balance the timeline, would he not have to go back to before Black Widow died to return the Soul Stone?
Answer: No before Black Widow died the soul stone was still there, he had to get it back after it was taken, so after Black Widow died.
I think the poster meant he would go back to the time he knew Black Widow and Hawkeye were aiming for, or a bit before for safety, then go there and wait until Black Widow died and Hawkeye got the stone, and then return it. It would be hard for him to watch, but then he would know when the right time was.
Right. But you also have to think that, having witnessed the events, and then seeing that the Red Skull is the guardian, that would have been a damn interesting scene to watch. Does Cap try bargaining with the Red Skull to return Black Widow to life after giving the stone back? On the other hand, the Ancient One's explanation was that the flow of time occurs simply because the stones are in the universe. I don't think it mattered where they are. She only wanted the time stone back because of how it was tied to the Sanctum. So really, Cap probably could have just thrown the stone in a ditch somewhere and been done with it. It also raises a question about the nature of Vormir as the home of the stone. We see the other stones were more or less fashioned into artifacts and out and about. This implies that they too were in some sort of temple in their raw stone form before being found, seized and manipulated into a real-world application. So does Vormir even have a mechanism for receiving the stone back once it's been claimed? And what is the soul stone's solo power, anyway? Reading people's fates like a crystal ball?
I don't think the red skull is really the red skull anymore, just some kind of ghost of whats left of him. However the stone gets returned is irrelevant, yes he could even just leave it in a ditch somewhere. He didn't return other stones in their original form either, except the time stone. These timelines don't continue on as the original one. According to the comics the soul stone is sentient and everyone sacrificed to obtain is has their soul trapped inside the gem. Cap and the others of course don't know that (although Hulk must theoretically know having used it) or in the MCU this does not apply. When possessing it you can control any life and read their souls (their feelings and desires). One can also revert living things back their original state (like Nebula for example).
12th Aug 2019
Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018)
Stupidity: This film reveals that the theme park was built upon a dormant volcano. This means that John Hammond either neglected to do a geological survey when picking a location for his park, or simply ignored it and foolishly gambled that the volcano would never erupt.
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Lots of people live right next to dormant volcanos. It can be thousands of years before a dormant volcano erupts. Might be a risk, but not as much as lets say living on a tectonic boundary or in tornado alley.
There's a difference between assuming the risk of living in an area prone to a natural disaster versus building a theme park that's completely reliant on tourism revenue in an area prone to a natural disaster. If a person's home is destroyed by a volcano, they can eventually get a new home, even if it takes a year or two. If a multi-billion dollar theme park is destroyed by a volcano, it's not something that can be replaced so easily, especially since no insurance company in their right mind would cover any of it. Additionally, the island in this film is fictional, which means the writers deliberately chose for a volcanic eruption to be the reason for the evacuation, when they could have just as easily made it so that the military decides to carpet-bomb the island or send in ground troops to gun down all the dinosaurs.
A dormant volcano is a dormant volcano, no reason to think it will erupt only years after you build a theme park on it. The area is not "prone" to a natural disaster. The eruption is a total surprise. Vesuvius erupts once every 2 decades or something and a lot more than a simple theme park is inside its destruction zone (red zone), including 800,000 people. And that is an active volcano. Take a look at Carney Park, a military recreational facility on top of a dormant volcano. Stupid?
Also, the examples you gave are areas with civilian populations that rely on those types of attractions to help stimulate the local economy. Isla Nublar is a privately owned island with no civilian population to speak of, other than park employees, meaning it is 100% reliant on tourism for its revenue.
How many theme parks are built in California, which is severely prone to earthquakes?
That's not an apples to apples comparison. California has a heavy civilian population and theme parks help contribute to their economy. Jurassic World is located on an isolated island with no civilian population and has to rely completely on tourism to stay in business.
12th Aug 2019
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Question: Why would the Trade Federation need the queen to sign a treaty to make their invasion legal if they've already invaded the place and taken over anyway?
21st Jun 2010
Minority Report (2002)
Plot hole: In the scene where Anderton is talking with Hineman, she says to him that "You will bring down the [Precrime] system yourself if you manage to kill your victim. That would be the most spectacular public display of how Precrime didn't work." Shouldn't she be saying "If you manage to not kill your victim"? (01:01:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Well, if Crow did die, then Precrime wouldn't have worked because the whole point is to stop murder from occurring at all.
Ether way it is a hit against precrime. If he does not kill Crow then it shows that the vision may not come true so you do not know if someone would really have killed someone else, outside situation like with the cheating wife at the start where they interrupted the murder. If Crow is murdered then it shows the system is flawed, which would not be as bad as the first as you would still be stopping a lot of the murders.
I can't tell if this reply is suggesting the correction is wrong or stating the line should be "not kill", making the mistake valid. By not killing the victim, that shows how Precrime is actually working and that knowing the future means you can alter it. If the murder occurs, it would weaken Precrime's stance and support that it can prevent crime.
No if he chooses not to kill Crowe then that means that the visions are just a version of the future, and thus not the actual future. So all the people with the halo on them are locked up wrongfully, as they may have decided not to do it like Anderton did, so the system collapses. That was the point, and it did. Hineman's remark is about the idea that precrime stops all murders, unless Andrton does manage to kill Crowe. The system then is flawed but like the previous commentor says, they still prevent most murders instead of all of them, which would count for something.
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.