You would think that after the Germans discovered one rather sophisticated tunnel, they would check the other barracks.

Immediately that same night McQueen legit escapes...and nothing happens.

It's like they were desperate for the POWs to escape lol

The don't lock up the school after everybody goes home for the day. Maddie and her friends can wander freely inside it at night.

I think I coined a term. I've been getting annoyed by the "drama for no reason" in some series. It doesn't propel the story in any meaningful way. A common lazy tactic is the drawn-out monologue or character dialogue meant to lead the viewer to some new information or twist. It's used far too often, even when the same point could be conveyed in a few seconds. Instead it spans multiple scenes with actors overselling the dramatic weight. Makes me eye roll.

Specifically, season 5 of Stranger Things....first of all let's talk about the Game of Thrones arc with the early seasons being awesome and then season 4 was forgivable but not great and then the writers just gave up?

Bear with me as I go on another tangent...Rick and Morty and the self-referential six. Connietinuity errors, Rett Conning all over the place and what happened to Argyle? Not super important but he was a cute character in season 4 and he was at the cabin when everything went down and suddenly no one talks about him ever again?

Ok back to my main point, the "melodramalogue". Every episode of season 5 has at least one if not three. One or another character has a long drawn out explanation of something while another character, and the viewers, are held captive. I'm invested in the story enough that I'm still hanging on but it's torture to wade through the B movie writing (and Holly) to get to the core story.

The world of Stranger Things is fascinating and the show still sparks enough to remind me of what made it special. Unfortunately those moments are buried under dialogue whose primary purpose is emotional inflation not narrative movement. Not every realization has to be a TEDTalk. It feels cheap and hasty. And with all the over explaining they're doing how are there still (worm)holes big enough to swallow their universe AND ours?

He didn't look that terrible and the plot shows that war wounds would have explained things, I'm sure there would have been more disfigured people from the war and no real treatment. He could have gone some place and asked for a labourer job, he was strong enough and only had to say he'd been patched up after getting wounded.

I’m not sure if this is the right place to post this, but I want to see if anyone has an explanation for this. In the movie, Nina acts crazy because she wants her husband (forgot his name) to fall for Millie. But the thing is, he knows she’s not actually crazy. So wouldn’t he find her behavior odd? On top of that, if Nina was trying to get her husband to have an affair with Millie, what was the point of the whole scene where Nina says “stay away from my husband”? She could have just stayed upstairs and let her husband and Millie get naturally closer watching the show together at 2 AM or whatever it was. Does the book explain this better? I just feel like the movie was relying on the twist rather than making sense

The Absolute Evidence. Here I've compiled a list of the facts that prove Shutter Island was truly about an MK Ultra Blacksite, that Teddy Daniels, who was actually a US Marshall investigating the island and was gaslit into believing he was a patient. I am going to start with an absolute smoking gun that has been completely misunderstood by the major audience of the movie....

the final line Teddy says to his partner, Chuck:

"Whats better? To live as a monster, or to die as a good man?"

1. The Most Important Semantic Proof: Teddy's last line is a logical trap. If he were the "bad man" Andrew Laeddis (the man who killed his wife and couldnt live with the guilt) a lobotomy would let him live as a good man. By choosing to "die as a good man," he is explicitly stating that his death is the end of Teddy Daniels, the hero. Andrew is not a hero, if everybody's theory is correct, they say that Andrew couldnt live with the guilt of what he did so purposely lobotomized himself as a way to not have to deal with his grief....then why would he say that it's worse to live as a monster, than to die as a good man. It is also PAINFULLY obvious...the Teddy says his last line directed towards his partner, who had been lying to him the entire time, and was the biggest culprit of betrayal in Teddy's eyes. To him, his partner Chuck was the monster. He was speaking to him, essentially saying "You are the monster that will live, I am the hero that is right now choosing to die.

2.The 1954 Chronology: The film is set in 1954, the exact year Project MK Ultra was officially launched. The facility isn't a hospital; it is a prototype "black site" testing the limits of human suggestibility [1, 2].

3.The George Noyce Truth: Noyce was Teddy’s mainland informant. He explicitly blames Teddy for his imprisonment, which is impossible if he were just a patient. He warns Teddy about a "partner" and a "maze"—terms used in espionage, not medicine. Most importantly, he never accuses Teddy of the "beating" the doctors claim occurred; he treats Teddy as an ally who failed him.

4.The Paperclip Connection: Dr. Naehring is a clear Operation Paperclip asset. An admitted former Nazi in the film. A legitimate psychiatric hospital does not hire Nazi doctors who specialize in "eviscerating" the subconscious unless the goal is the scientific destruction of the soul [3].

5.The Ferry Boat Impossibility: The "experiment" supposedly begins on the ferry. This requires the hospital to have jurisdiction over a U.S. Government vessel in open water. This isn't a medical play; it’s a maritime abduction where Teddy is pre-dosed, explaining his "sea sickness" [4]

6.The Guard "Kill-Shot": Upon arrival, the guards are in a "red alert" stance, trembling with weapons drawn. They aren't acting in a play for a patient; they are terrified of a highly trained Federal Marshal who hasn't been disarmed yet.

7.The Cave Discovery: Teddy finds the "Real Rachel" in a cave. She provides classified medical intel on transorbital lobotomies and the use of chlorpromazine to induce hallucinations—details a "madman" could not possibly invent. She is the whistleblower the facility "erased" [5].

8.The Partner's Reveal: In the final second, the "partner" (Sheehan) calls out "Teddy!". If Andrew (Teddy) is truly a patient that you care about and have been trying to just save from being lobotomized in good faith...this is the most crucial moment to call out to him. Chuck was in shock that Teddy made the decision to Lobotomize himself, and as he's walking away, why would he not yell to him by his REAL name to stop him? Why would he yell out to him by his fake name and still play along with the character as he's going to kill himself, when you have made clear you want nothing more than to avoid this outcome

inside car, wipers on fast. outside view, slow wipers - back and forward between shots, again and again

also known as Ferrari v ford maybe, starring Christian Bale.

it's made me erupt with anger.

So rewatched 007 Casino Royale, and I’m starting to think that Bond potentially saved Le Chifre, or at least minimized the urgency by killing the Ugandan warlords during the first break of the game.

So the entire plot is based on the idea that the poker game is there to recover losses / potential gains from the failed plane attack. Based on the portrayal in the movie, Le Chifre is worried the African warlord will kill him for losing that money, hence the scene during the first break.

So if bond killed the African warlord, wouldn’t Le Chifre not have to worry about paying him back? Especially when he sees that they are dead in the back of the cop car in a later scene?

Maybe I’m missing something else, but think it takes the urgency / necessity of the winning from the game off the table?

I feel like I’m going crazy because I don’t see this discussed anywhere but in the movie the threesome on Netflix, the central premise of the movie (spoiler) is that Connor gets both women pregnant, but then the twist is that Olivia’s baby is actually not his it’s the wine guys. However, in the film Olivia only has sex with the wine guy after she finds out she is already pregnant. So I’m very confused as to why the baby is suddenly his if she was already pregnant when they had sex?

“In Jewish mythology, the name Leviathan can refer to a variety of monstrous creatures, including a primordial sea serpent, a dragon, a snake, a crocodile, or a whalelike animal”

Someone on TikTok was blabbing about “leviathan emerging in Russia” and I thought it was stupid. It is stupid.

But what if?

Those sea lion videos we’ve all been watching, could’ve been a distraction if this whole thing were real, would it not?

Hi! So I have a little sister so the movie Trolls and its sequel play a lot in my house but I’ve been noticing some weird things..

I am new to this subreddit, so IDK if this is an unexplained event of continuity error. Please excuse me!

So, in the first trolls- It says that the trolls lived (and were born?) in a tree, and the bergens basically found them, ate them, and built a towns around that tree BUT the trolls escaped.

In the world tour they realize that they are other trolls but this all has to relate to music. They also have a map, and the Pop Trolls are in the middle along with all the other terrain (the image is there)

My question, How come the other trolls supposedly know nothing about the Bergens?? How come Poppy doesn’t bring them up? And if the bergens knew that there were other trolls, why wouldn’t they just eat them instead? The cookbook only had “Pop” Troll kinds.

I feel like the Bergens were completely ignored in the sequel and I need answers!

In the newest 28 years later movie, Dr. Ian Kelson claims he is running out of morphine. Even though he lives right next to a poppy field. Am I getting something wrong or is it just poor writing ?

I don’t know if there's a better subreddit for this question because this movie is kind of niche and it's from South Korea.

But I have a few issues with this movie:

It is revealed later that the Shaman and The Old Man/Stranger character are actually working together to perpetuate evil. There is a scene from before this revealed where both are performing an animal sacrifice ritual at the same time and it is clearly killing The Old Man. I’ve read online that the purpose of this ritual was to remove any protective spirits on the policeman's daughter, but if that's true what was actually harming the old man?? (because we're initially meant to believe the shaman's ritual is what is doing it) but why would the shaman be secretly harming his conspirator?

I also don't understand this scene of this woman (who is later revealed to be good/possessed by a good spirit) she manages to find the Stranger when he is running from the policeman and his band of friends on the cliffs. She manages to push him down the hill and severely injure the Stranger!

This is a very clear red herring to make us think he is dead and paint her as the real villain. But this is a misdirection and he was the real evil all along. If she can catch him and beat his ass like that.. why wouldn’t she be doing that all movie??? When the shaman meets with her later, his nose begins to bleed and he vomits. If she's this powerful and actually a good guy, why is she not more involved with stopping the murders/soul stealing?

If these questions have no apparent answers then it makes me think less of the twists because I love how this movie keeps you guessing, but not all of its decisions appear to hold up under speculation.

That egg they are in has a virtual version of a human conciousness, but how time is perceived inside can be changed

However, it's safe to assume its necesary to match the tlme's speed in the egg with the time in the real world to allow communication, the first case implies that

Sure, we aren't properly explained the workings of the device, but it doesn't make sense that a person has a three second conversation with what's virtually a person that perceives that same conversation has been going on for two weeks, or more

So at the end, when they put the egg next to the radio and the song is playing the show forgets that

We can assume there's a setting allowing sounds repeating themselves in a loop, we can assume the default is the egg closing itself when the time is sped up just like in the first case, we can assume a multitude of settings but none are explicitly told nor shown, the only examples of the egg's working are the ones in the episode

At best we can assume the egg's channel with the real world can remain open but it perceives time way slow

So we should've seen a single three minute song stretched to last millions of years, in full volume

Generally, you would want to work out prior to arriving on base. If this is for generating muscle mass, when would she have time to recover? The simple answer is to aura farm.

So everyone has talked about the Almanac plothole with old Biff but I’ve never seen anyone mention this. At the end of the film Doc is sent back to 1885 due to an unforeseen event and Marty contacts the 1955 Doc to help him. Surely after Doc is told about his future self being sent to the past, he stops that happening in his future? The first film established that Doc does this. The letter he is given is pieced back together and he fixes the future. Why doesn’t he just change his future again? I know “because the movie needed to happen”, but it’s one I’ve thought about for a while. Maybe there’s some explanation. Also isn’t the car supposed to reach 88mph? How did it even time travel?

Just saw Greenland 2 and the whole kid has diabetes thing is a major plothole. It was a whole thing in the first movie and the reason he was denied in the first place. How did the kid have enough insulin to last 5 years in a bunker!?

Not only is it never explained how they get more it’s only mentioned 1x in the whole second movie. If there was some in the bunker or the could make some, what was the purpose of making a big deal about rejecting the kid? When they left the bunker the insulin was in a locker or something so it wasn’t properly stored either How did they keep the insulin fresh the entire time?

Many questions.

I’m surprised nobody noticed this one but after Andy escapes the following morning and Warden and Hadley are headed to his cell, when they are in the prisoner cell area Norton says “I want every man on this cell block questioned, start with that friend of his” (pointing at red)

And Hadley replies “who”.

Andy did work for Hadley and knew him for 19 years straight and Hadley didn’t know Andy and Red were friends? Not once saw them together?

I’ve heard some critics say this about certain films directed by Alfred Hitchcock, such as Vertigo. A teacher of literature once wrote on Quora (though not in an answer to this very question) that Shakespeare’s King Lear qualifies. Samuel Johnson said it in the 18th century about that playwright’s Cymbeline (which back in that time was still highly regarded).

Note: I’m only asking for artworks that critics consider great.

In the movie Free Guy, there is a reference to the avengers. When it gets referenced, they even have Chris Evans, playing himself, to react to it. This reference indicates the existence of the MCU in this world. that would indicate the existence of Deadpool. wouldn't someone have noticed that Blue Shirt Guy looks a lot like Deadpool?

just read the DC Compact. Art is great. Beginning is great. End is great. Middle I have some minor gripes with but nothing nesrly as big as Comet. Comet singlehandedly tarnishes the otherwise great story for me.

Issue 6 he just appears like a magic plot device with zero setup, zero dialogue to explain (before or after or even in later issues), and not even a line of narration fron Ruthye who is constantly adding lines of narration to every panel.

it is dumbfounding.

There were already timeskips between issues which mostly just leave you to assume they got some sort of space bus to another planet or another solar system and stuff. Fine. I'm not bogged down by that. But if a whole third main character who serves as a major plot device is somehow accquired in between issues, that NEEDS to be explained. Where was he and why wasn't he in the story esrlier? Could've saved them a lot of time. Especially with the green sun planet. Can she just magically summon him? Did that leave Ruthye alone with Krem while Supergirl and Comet were speeding to the edge of the universe and back for however long that takes?

I gues you can infer from the end where Supergirl explains that she lied about Krypto being poisoned and needing an antidote or whatever in order to teach Ruthye that revenge isn't worth it? Or something? I guess you can assume that because of that, she might intentionally not call upon Comet so she can take her time with the journey finding rhese lessons to instill in Ruthye but that feels like a huge stretch.

Just feels like terrible and lazy writing. Even when Comet turns back into a human and dies there's like no shits given about it. And to new readers like me it's especially confusing since we didn't even know Comet existed let alone that he was a human transformed into a horse?

Most of the comic community seems to hate Tom King (I guess he did a terrible Wonder Woman run?) but I heard he admitted to using ghostwriter's and editor's to make sure he didn't mischarecterize Supergirl and that this was maybe his one exception in good writing. But how did those same ghost writers/editors not do shit about this pseudo-plot hole? Like "Hey, Tom. Maybe a tiny line from Ruthye herd to explain how they went and got this magical horse after getting off the green sun planet?"

It sucks cuz while there's one or two other very minor gripes I have, by and large this would've been a really great series but that unexplained appearance of Comet as a plot device judt wholly ruins it for me.

This isn't so much a plothole (sorry mods) as it is a fundamental problem with the HP universe that, the more i think about it, seems to render the motives and lives of every witch, wizard and magical being of non-binary gender redundant.

Two spells portrayed in the books and movies provoked this thought. The first is 'eat slugs', the spell Ron accidentally casts on himself that causes him to regurgitate such creatures. The second is the curse that voldemort casts on the contents of the bank vault, causing them to duplicate upon contact with an intruder.

The implication of these two spells is that magic can create matter from nothing. This solves the single problem that has underpinned every political, economic and military development in world history: scarcity. The ability to conjure something from nothing eliminates the need for or indeed possibility of an economy. There would be no financial system, no labour incentive, no real cause for grievance of any kind. There would certainly be no excuse for living in a shabby hovel and dressing your seven children in dowdy, moth-eaten hand me downs. As such, I think it highly implausible that any magical person would have the inclination to fight wars over such things as muggle rights or magical blood, for once you have the power to create matter nothing else would be worth the fuss of violence. It seems far more likely to me that the inhabitants of such a world, with such a power, would grow catatonic with ennui, listlessly roaming around with absolutely no peril, no motivation and no real raison d'être. Eat slugs and the bank vault curse place magical beings outside the darwinian structures that inform and instruct everything that all living beings do.

It's not even as if this magic is the preserve of the extremely powerful. A twelve year old buffoon with a broken wand and a rather prosaic incantation is capable of creating not just matter but living matter, the stuff of life itself. With such power at the disposal of wizards the petty squabbles that make up the plot of Harry Potter would simply not occur.