So I was on the phone w/ Fenwick last night (fucker) and I brought up The Terminator franchise. I love the movies. I still need to find T2 on BluRay™ for a cheap price. I'm not into paying huge prices for old movies on BluRay™. He said, "You know you just opened a can of worms with that statement," meaning the movie in general.

He mentioned a plot hole in T2 that I hadn't noticed. (jackass)

Robert Patrick's character of the T-1000 terminator that comes to kill John and Sarah Connor has a couple of abilities. One is that he can copy the voice of anyone he touches or comes in contact with. He did it with the foster parents of John Connor, namely the mother. He can also take on the form of someone he sees or touches, like the fat security guard at the mental health facility where Sarah Connor was being held.

The one thing he did throughout the movie was kill people. He never ignored them because they weren't his target. He just flat out eliminated anyone and everyone in his quest to get to John and Sarah Connor.

Now, fast forward to the end of the movie. He has Sarah Connor cornered in that factory. He then makes his finger into a spear/knife of sorts, and instead of killing her and mimicking her voice, stabs her in the shoulder and commands her to call out for her son so he'll come to them (obviously intending to kill him). But why doesn't he just kill Sarah? He's killed everyone else, and his goal is to kill them both, so why does he just torture her? Why not just kill her too, as is his goal - and it's what he's done to everyone else he's encountered pretty much, and mimick her voice to call for John. I do believe he does use her voice at one point to call for John, but it's almost too little, too late.

Seems the T-1000 almost had feelings and wanted to relish the moment, but that isn't condusive to a machine or the status quo set up in the two movies. I told Fenwick they should have just killed Sarah Connor at that point. John was already alive, and we never really see her in T3 (which is so different it almost has to be considered an alternate time line or a parallel universe, and not part of the regular Terminator storyline). Yes, you don't kill the heroine, but what a fantastic ending that would have been. Had Sarah been killed, it would have totally fueled John's future desire to rise up in a rebellion against the machines as we see in Terminator:Salvation.

Thoughts? Other major movie plot holes you've seen in your favorite movies? Not little inconsistencies like a straw in a glass moving from one position to the next with each shot - but major plot holes.

Not sure if these count as plot holes... they've just annoyed the hell out of me over the years.

1) A few good men, the entire jack nicholson speech at the end "you can't handle the truth" etc.

The speech although delivered and acted great, makes absolutely zero sense. Jack is trying to portray Tom Cruise as some guy that sympathizes with Santiago and "curses the marines".... hello??? Tom Cruise is trying to save the two marines that killed and murdered Santiago...

The reaction of the public to this scene really showed me that a poor script/plot points can easily be masked...

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

How, in Purple Rain, it jumps from The Kid's mom crying on his bed and The Kid saying, "Ma..." and touching her knee, to him waking up in his bed, alone, wearing her earring.

This seems like more of a continuity thing...until you see the original screenplay.

crazydoctor said:

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

For me, this is what I see with that: The Emperor works off fear and hate. It's what gives him power. He constantly says he can feel Luke's anger. Luke IS angry at what is going on, but like a true Jedi, he's trying to control it, instead of it control him. Anakin became a Darth because he was weak and let fear and anger and pride take him over. It controlled him. If the Emperor could encite and provoke Luke to the point of true anger and wrath and lashing out, then he'd have him hooked. Anakin never liked the Emperor later on that much. He was more scared of him than anything, and their codependent relationship (the Emperor pulling the puppet strings on Vader) is what kept them together. They would be united in hate, even if they didn't care for each other. The drunkeness of power is what would unite them. The hate taking over Luke's mind would have blinded him to the ills that the Emperor or Vader had tried to execute on him.

ernestsewell said:

So I was on the phone w/ Fenwick last night (fucker) and I brought up The Terminator franchise. I love the movies. I still need to find T2 on BluRay™ for a cheap price. I'm not into paying huge prices for old movies on BluRay™. He said, "You know you just opened a can of worms with that statement," meaning the movie in general.

He mentioned a plot hole in T2 that I hadn't noticed. (jackass)

Robert Patrick's character of the T-1000 terminator that comes to kill John and Sarah Connor has a couple of abilities. One is that he can copy the voice of anyone he touches or comes in contact with. He did it with the foster parents of John Connor, namely the mother. He can also take on the form of someone he sees or touches, like the fat security guard at the mental health facility where Sarah Connor was being held.

The one thing he did throughout the movie was kill people. He never ignored them because they weren't his target. He just flat out eliminated anyone and everyone in his quest to get to John and Sarah Connor.

Now, fast forward to the end of the movie. He has Sarah Connor cornered in that factory. He then makes his finger into a spear/knife of sorts, and instead of killing her and mimicking her voice, stabs her in the shoulder and commands her to call out for her son so he'll come to them (obviously intending to kill him). But why doesn't he just kill Sarah? He's killed everyone else, and his goal is to kill them both, so why does he just torture her? Why not just kill her too, as is his goal - and it's what he's done to everyone else he's encountered pretty much, and mimick her voice to call for John. I do believe he does use her voice at one point to call for John, but it's almost too little, too late.

Seems the T-1000 almost had feelings and wanted to relish the moment, but that isn't condusive to a machine or the status quo set up in the two movies. I told Fenwick they should have just killed Sarah Connor at that point. John was already alive, and we never really see her in T3 (which is so different it almost has to be considered an alternate time line or a parallel universe, and not part of the regular Terminator storyline). Yes, you don't kill the heroine, but what a fantastic ending that would have been. Had Sarah been killed, it would have totally fueled John's future desire to rise up in a rebellion against the machines as we see in Terminator:Salvation.

Thoughts? Other major movie plot holes you've seen in your favorite movies? Not little inconsistencies like a straw in a glass moving from one position to the next with each shot - but major plot holes.

John Conner was the target. The T-1000 was using Sarah to draw him out of hiding. They were trained to complete the objective and that is a tactic that would be in their arsenal. He wasn't just a killing machine. As you noted, he would lie, spy, and manipulate to gain advantages. Sarah Conner had more value to him alive at that point to get John Conner out of hiding. If he would have gotten to her at another point, then maybe he would have just killed her.

I'm sorry that I disagree, but that's not really a plot hole. The fact that he's more than an instant killing machine and can make almost human like decisions (kidnapping, torture, etc) is a foil to the Arnold model whose AI matures to having a friendship John Conner.

Terminator is in my top five all-time favorite movies, but T2 isn't. It's a great action movie, and the effects are brilliant, but the movie doesn't quite have the specialness of the first. With Terminator being a huge exception, most movies that use time travel as a plot device wind up with headache-inducing plot holes (like Superman--he travels back in time to save Lois Lane, and when he does, it looks like the world is fine. But she starts yelling at him about the exploding gas station, etc., which means the nuclear bomb went off--and that's a big deal. Plus, there should be two Supermen in the world at that point: the one who was already there and the one who just time traveled back.)

Contact is another favorite movie of mine, but one thing that always bugged me in its storyline is the end, where no one believes she made the journey. At one point, Angela Bassett does say to the senator played by James Woods that the recording device on board recorded 14 hours of static, so it's obvious she was gone longer than a few seconds. But also, she got out of the chair she was sitting in, and then the chair was crumpled and crushed. If the sphere she was in had really just fallen straight into the water, she wouldn't have had time to get out of the chair. It would seem that she would have been able to mention that in her defense at the senate hearing.

Genesia said:

How, in Purple Rain, it jumps from The Kid's mom crying on his bed and The Kid saying, "Ma..." and touching her knee, to him waking up in his bed, alone, wearing her earring.

This seems like more of a continuity thing...until you see the original screenplay.

I forget if he had the earring on the night before, but it was a segue to the next day. There's a lot of times when the kid wakes up (and there's always a train sound when he does, which is interesting). The train sound almost indicates morning or day time, when things start to pick up again, thereby lending to the unspoken notion that it's the next day. The fight w/ the mom is at night, and she obviously gets up and moves on, and he crawls in bed. Point being - there's a segue pushing time forward to the next day, so for me, it makes sense.

ernestsewell said:

crazydoctor said:

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

For me, this is what I see with that: The Emperor works off fear and hate. It's what gives him power. He constantly says he can feel Luke's anger. Luke IS angry at what is going on, but like a true Jedi, he's trying to control it, instead of it control him. Anakin became a Darth because he was weak and let fear and anger and pride take him over. It controlled him. If the Emperor could encite and provoke Luke to the point of true anger and wrath and lashing out, then he'd have him hooked. Anakin never liked the Emperor later on that much. He was more scared of him than anything, and their codependent relationship (the Emperor pulling the puppet strings on Vader) is what kept them together. They would be united in hate, even if they didn't care for each other. The drunkeness of power is what would unite them. The hate taking over Luke's mind would have blinded him to the ills that the Emperor or Vader had tried to execute on him.

See, if Luke was drunk on power, why not just try to kill the Emperor... I mean what kind of power is being a slave to the emperor...

anakin didn't hate the emperor... he hated the jedi... so it sort of makes sense for him to join the emperor... but luke only hates the emperor... why join him...

Dauphin said:

John Conner was the target. The T-1000 was using Sarah to draw him out of hiding. They were trained to complete the objective and that is a tactic that would be in their arsenal. He wasn't just a killing machine. As you noted, he would lie, spy, and manipulate to gain advantages. Sarah Conner had more value to him alive at that point to get John Conner out of hiding. If he would have gotten to her at another point, then maybe he would have just killed her.

I'm sorry that I disagree, but that's not really a plot hole. The fact that he's more than an instant killing machine and can make almost human like decisions (kidnapping, torture, etc) is a foil to the Arnold model whose AI matures to having a friendship John Conner.

But the T-1000 could take on anyone's APPEARANCE, not just voice. He could have killed Sarah, and impersonated her to find John, then kill him. Remember the phone scene where Arnold is calling home and using John's voice? And the foster mom is talking to him? It's really the terminator, looking and sounding like the foster mom, and the foster mom is dead. Why not do that in the factory? Kill Sarah, impersonate her in body and voice, get close to John and just kill him. That's a major hole. He doesn't need Sarah to get closer to John to kill him. Just become Sarah.

crazydoctor said:

ernestsewell said:

For me, this is what I see with that: The Emperor works off fear and hate. It's what gives him power. He constantly says he can feel Luke's anger. Luke IS angry at what is going on, but like a true Jedi, he's trying to control it, instead of it control him. Anakin became a Darth because he was weak and let fear and anger and pride take him over. It controlled him. If the Emperor could encite and provoke Luke to the point of true anger and wrath and lashing out, then he'd have him hooked. Anakin never liked the Emperor later on that much. He was more scared of him than anything, and their codependent relationship (the Emperor pulling the puppet strings on Vader) is what kept them together. They would be united in hate, even if they didn't care for each other. The drunkeness of power is what would unite them. The hate taking over Luke's mind would have blinded him to the ills that the Emperor or Vader had tried to execute on him.

See, if Luke was drunk on power, why not just try to kill the Emperor... I mean what kind of power is being a slave to the emperor...

anakin didn't hate the emperor... he hated the jedi... so it sort of makes sense for him to join the emperor... but luke only hates the emperor... why join him...

Luke was still young, and didn't hon his evil side like the Emperor had for the 20 something years prior (remember he became the Emperor before Luke was born, and if Luke is in his early 20's, or even around 18 or 19, then it's been a couple of decades that the Emperor has maneuvered on the dark side - Luke has only been a Jedi for a couple/three years or so). He didn't have the power to kill the Emperor. The one time he lashed out to kill the Emperor, Vader stopped him.

crazydoctor said:

Not sure if these count as plot holes... they've just annoyed the hell out of me over the years.

1) A few good men, the entire jack nicholson speech at the end "you can't handle the truth" etc.

The speech although delivered and acted great, makes absolutely zero sense. Jack is trying to portray Tom Cruise as some guy that sympathizes with Santiago and "curses the marines".... hello??? Tom Cruise is trying to save the two marines that killed and murdered Santiago...

The reaction of the public to this scene really showed me that a poor script/plot points can easily be masked...

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

"You can't handle the truth" has to do with the ugly side of the military. Why they exist isn't to hold people's hands and give hugs. They do things to make sure their country is protected. To torture and accidentaly kill one man is insignificant when that man could have cost the lives of other servicemen while in actual combat.

The idea of a Code Red was to get a soldier to shape up and get with the program. You do that because there are larger issues at stake. This is why Nicholson explains that Cruise wakes up and lives a great life and argues theory and morality when it's the soldiers that have to go out there are put their asses on the line. He was taking the stance that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. In Santiago's case, it was unfortuante. And in the trial, the two marines would be sacrificed to keep the corp moving along. When Cruise was finished, Nicholson's character was to be brought up on charges, that one guy killed himself, Santiago was still dead, and the two marines went to jail anyway. As a viewer, you were to decide if you were okay with that.

ernestsewell said:

Dauphin said:

John Conner was the target. The T-1000 was using Sarah to draw him out of hiding. They were trained to complete the objective and that is a tactic that would be in their arsenal. He wasn't just a killing machine. As you noted, he would lie, spy, and manipulate to gain advantages. Sarah Conner had more value to him alive at that point to get John Conner out of hiding. If he would have gotten to her at another point, then maybe he would have just killed her.

I'm sorry that I disagree, but that's not really a plot hole. The fact that he's more than an instant killing machine and can make almost human like decisions (kidnapping, torture, etc) is a foil to the Arnold model whose AI matures to having a friendship John Conner.

But the T-1000 could take on anyone's APPEARANCE, not just voice. He could have killed Sarah, and impersonated her to find John, then kill him. Remember the phone scene where Arnold is calling home and using John's voice? And the foster mom is talking to him? It's really the terminator, looking and sounding like the foster mom, and the foster mom is dead. Why not do that in the factory? Kill Sarah, impersonate her in body and voice, get close to John and just kill him. That's a major hole. He doesn't need Sarah to get closer to John to kill him. Just become Sarah.

As I recall, he DID impersonate Sarah just before this, and he was shot for his troubles.

ernestsewell said:

Genesia said:

How, in Purple Rain, it jumps from The Kid's mom crying on his bed and The Kid saying, "Ma..." and touching her knee, to him waking up in his bed, alone, wearing her earring.

This seems like more of a continuity thing...until you see the original screenplay.

I forget if he had the earring on the night before, but it was a segue to the next day. There's a lot of times when the kid wakes up (and there's always a train sound when he does, which is interesting). The train sound almost indicates morning or day time, when things start to pick up again, thereby lending to the unspoken notion that it's the next day. The fight w/ the mom is at night, and she obviously gets up and moves on, and he crawls in bed. Point being - there's a segue pushing time forward to the next day, so for me, it makes sense.

No, he wakes up the same night. This is when he tells Apollonia to come see him around 8:00 and it's between 8:20 and 8:30 when his parents burst into the basement. He actually looks at the clock - it says 8:20 - and then he picks up the Doritos bag and goes to listen to Wendy and Lisa's tape. That's when the fight breaks out. That happens, then he wakes up (with earring) as Apollonia climbs through the window with the guitar. I'm pretty sure there's another "clock check" at that point - and it says something like 10:30. After The Kid smacks her for joining Morris's band, she climbs out the window - and you can see that it's still dark outside.

Dauphin said:

crazydoctor said:

Not sure if these count as plot holes... they've just annoyed the hell out of me over the years.

1) A few good men, the entire jack nicholson speech at the end "you can't handle the truth" etc.

The speech although delivered and acted great, makes absolutely zero sense. Jack is trying to portray Tom Cruise as some guy that sympathizes with Santiago and "curses the marines".... hello??? Tom Cruise is trying to save the two marines that killed and murdered Santiago...

The reaction of the public to this scene really showed me that a poor script/plot points can easily be masked...

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

"You can't handle the truth" has to do with the ugly side of the military. Why they exist isn't to hold people's hands and give hugs. They do things to make sure their country is protected. To torture and accidentaly kill one man is insignificant when that man could have cost the lives of other servicemen while in actual combat.

The idea of a Code Red was to get a soldier to shape up and get with the program. You do that because there are larger issues at stake. This is why Nicholson explains that Cruise wakes up and lives a great life and argues theory and morality when it's the soldiers that have to go out there are put their asses on the line. He was taking the stance that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. In Santiago's case, it was unfortuante. And in the trial, the two marines would be sacrificed to keep the corp moving along. When Cruise was finished, Nicholson's character was to be brought up on charges, that one guy killed himself, Santiago was still dead, and the two marines went to jail anyway. As a viewer, you were to decide if you were okay with that.

all well and good... but why is nicholson giving this speech to Tom Cruise who's trying to save the two men who gave the code red? Nothing Tom Cruise does in the movie in any way gives the impression he's against code reds. If code reds were "good" that only supports Tom Cruise's case... If Santiago's death is insignificant, that only supports Tom Cruise's case to save Santiago's killers.

The two marines don't go to jail. They are dishonorably discharged from the marines, but they're free to go.

[Edited 8/13/10 8:17am]

ernestsewell said:

So I was on the phone w/ Fenwick last night (fucker) and I brought up The Terminator franchise. I love the movies. I still need to find T2 on BluRay™ for a cheap price. I'm not into paying huge prices for old movies on BluRay™. He said, "You know you just opened a can of worms with that statement," meaning the movie in general.

He mentioned a plot hole in T2 that I hadn't noticed. (jackass)

Robert Patrick's character of the T-1000 terminator that comes to kill John and Sarah Connor has a couple of abilities. One is that he can copy the voice of anyone he touches or comes in contact with. He did it with the foster parents of John Connor, namely the mother. He can also take on the form of someone he sees or touches, like the fat security guard at the mental health facility where Sarah Connor was being held.

The one thing he did throughout the movie was kill people. He never ignored them because they weren't his target. He just flat out eliminated anyone and everyone in his quest to get to John and Sarah Connor.

Now, fast forward to the end of the movie. He has Sarah Connor cornered in that factory. He then makes his finger into a spear/knife of sorts, and instead of killing her and mimicking her voice, stabs her in the shoulder and commands her to call out for her son so he'll come to them (obviously intending to kill him). But why doesn't he just kill Sarah? He's killed everyone else, and his goal is to kill them both, so why does he just torture her? Why not just kill her too, as is his goal - and it's what he's done to everyone else he's encountered pretty much, and mimick her voice to call for John. I do believe he does use her voice at one point to call for John, but it's almost too little, too late.

Seems the T-1000 almost had feelings and wanted to relish the moment, but that isn't condusive to a machine or the status quo set up in the two movies. I told Fenwick they should have just killed Sarah Connor at that point. John was already alive, and we never really see her in T3 (which is so different it almost has to be considered an alternate time line or a parallel universe, and not part of the regular Terminator storyline). Yes, you don't kill the heroine, but what a fantastic ending that would have been. Had Sarah been killed, it would have totally fueled John's future desire to rise up in a rebellion against the machines as we see in Terminator:Salvation.

Thoughts? Other major movie plot holes you've seen in your favorite movies? Not little inconsistencies like a straw in a glass moving from one position to the next with each shot - but major plot holes.

It's actually worse. After Sarah Connor temporarily gets away, (I forget how) the Terminator actually emerges AS HER CHARACTER two minutes later and starts calling to John as if she's hurt. Then the real Sarah shows up from behind him and shoots him. Totally retarded and makes absolutely no sense. As you already siad above, why not chop her head off the first time and be done with it?

Same with you, I told this to a co-worker who was a HUGE fan of the franchise a couple of years ago. He told me there was no way he missed something that obvious and went back and watched it that night. He came in the next day and said I had completely ruined the enire movie for him.

Oops...

The only other one I can think of for a major blockbuster like that is Gladiator. And on that one, I'm not 100% certain, but I 've never had anyone explain it to me in a way that removes my doubt. But if you don't potentially want this one spoiled for you either, read no further.

Near the end of Gladiator. Joaquin Phoenix is playing at swords with his nephew. They begin to spar and Joaquin inquires about his nephew's aspisrations with sword play. He asks him if he wants to be at his uncle's side protecting him from future attacks.

Yet the nephew categorically says, no, he wants to be a gladiator like Russell Crowe, "the saviour of rome".

Dramatic pause - deathly stare from Joaquin - fear in the kid's eyes. Oops he just gave away the secret.

Me - staring incredulously at the screen. Huh? Are we supposed to believe that the future of Rome hangs in the balance of a ten year old kid's ability to keep a secret? What was that conversation like? Did mommy sit him down and say, "Listen son, we're going to kill your uncle in a week or two and be rid of him forever. Just don't tell anyone ok? Night night".

Again - beyond ridiculous to me. Not that that movie was anything stellar to begin with, but after seeing that scene, I can't look at it the same way.

crazydoctor said:

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

This was addressed in The Empire Strikes Back. Originally, the Emperor was going to have Luke killed. Luke could not be allowed to become a Jedi because he would have had the power to kill the Emperor. Vader even tells Luke this later "the Emperor has forseen this." So Vader puts out the idea to the Emperor that Luke would be a valuable ally in the order of the Sith. The Emperor likes this idea, and Vader says that "He will join us or die, my Master."

So at the end of ROTJ, he is explaining that everything Luke has lived and fought for was for naught. Everybody was dying. The Empire had superior position. He was putting feelings of fear and dread into Luke's head, which weakens a Jedi's powers. He then began encouraging the anger inside of Luke to come out, as that leads to incredible power boosts. And as Luke was tied to the logic of a Jedi, once you go down the path of the Dark Side, it's over. All the Emperor had to do was get Luke to kill his father out of rage, and Luke would belong to the Emperor forever. It was at the point when Luke could have delivered the final strike that Luke realized that his father COULD be saved. It IS possible to come away from the Dark Side. Once Luke had that realization, it didn't matter anymore. As far as the Emperor was concerned, Luke could have killed his father and then killed the Emperor later. So that's when the Emperor said "fuck it, we tried" and started killing Luke.

Oops - I see a few of you have already been talking about this one. Sorry if my epic posts trips on seomthing already covered. I'll read the others and add more as needed.

Genesia said:

No, he wakes up the same night. This is when he tells Apollonia to come see him around 8:00 and it's between 8:20 and 8:30 when his parents burst into the basement. He actually looks at the clock - it says 8:20 - and then he picks up the Doritos bag and goes to listen to Wendy and Lisa's tape. That's when the fight breaks out. That happens, then he wakes up (with earring) as Apollonia climbs through the window with the guitar. I'm pretty sure there's another "clock check" at that point - and it says something like 10:30. After The Kid smacks her for joining Morris's band, she climbs out the window - and you can see that it's still dark outside.

Okay, good about the time, but it's still a "push" forward in time, even if a couple of hours. No idea about the earring. That's just a continuity thing.

Girl, you done watched that movie TOO much. lol (Wait - haven't we all?)

Dauphin said:

All the Emperor had to do was get Luke to kill his father out of rage, and Luke would belong to the Emperor forever.

why exactly? this is what I don't get.

crazydoctor said:

Not sure if these count as plot holes... they've just annoyed the hell out of me over the years.

1) A few good men, the entire jack nicholson speech at the end "you can't handle the truth" etc.

The speech although delivered and acted great, makes absolutely zero sense. Jack is trying to portray Tom Cruise as some guy that sympathizes with Santiago and "curses the marines".... hello??? Tom Cruise is trying to save the two marines that killed and murdered Santiago...

The reaction of the public to this scene really showed me that a poor script/plot points can easily be masked...

2) the ending of return of the jedi with the emperor, vader and luke... what the heck is the emperor thinking here... why would luke join with him... "Luke, I'm going to make you hate me so much that..... that you'll want to join me!" WTF??? makes absolutely no sense whatsoever... again another case of good acting and other movie tricks (great music, lighting atmophere) masking a poor script.

Worst script moment in Return of the Jedi is when Kenobi gives his "certain point of view" excuse about telling Luke that Vadar killed his father. This was the lamest way for Lucas to get out of the bind that when he wrote and made Star Wars, he did not intend for Vadar to be Luke's father. He had finalized the script with Vadar being the murderer of his father. I do like Star Wars the best (and without the episode 4 they tacked on for the rerelease and all versions that play now).

ernestsewell said:

Genesia said:

No, he wakes up the same night. This is when he tells Apollonia to come see him around 8:00 and it's between 8:20 and 8:30 when his parents burst into the basement. He actually looks at the clock - it says 8:20 - and then he picks up the Doritos bag and goes to listen to Wendy and Lisa's tape. That's when the fight breaks out. That happens, then he wakes up (with earring) as Apollonia climbs through the window with the guitar. I'm pretty sure there's another "clock check" at that point - and it says something like 10:30. After The Kid smacks her for joining Morris's band, she climbs out the window - and you can see that it's still dark outside.

Okay, good about the time, but it's still a "push" forward in time, even if a couple of hours. No idea about the earring. That's just a continuity thing.

Girl, you done watched that movie TOO much. lol (Wait - haven't we all?)

Oh, come on - an earring suddenly jumps from his mother's ear to his? When he's been napping? And it's only two hours later?

How did it get there?!

Genesia said:

ernestsewell said:

Okay, good about the time, but it's still a "push" forward in time, even if a couple of hours. No idea about the earring. That's just a continuity thing.

Girl, you done watched that movie TOO much. lol (Wait - haven't we all?)

Oh, come on - an earring suddenly jumps from his mother's ear to his? When he's been napping? And it's only two hours later?

How did it get there?!

He put it in. The time jumps 2 hours, roughly. That's time to put on an earring and take a nap, or do whatever. The move from the fight to Apollonia isn't instant in a realistic time line. People do shit not on camera. lol

crazydoctor said:

Dauphin said:

"You can't handle the truth" has to do with the ugly side of the military. Why they exist isn't to hold people's hands and give hugs. They do things to make sure their country is protected. To torture and accidentaly kill one man is insignificant when that man could have cost the lives of other servicemen while in actual combat.

The idea of a Code Red was to get a soldier to shape up and get with the program. You do that because there are larger issues at stake. This is why Nicholson explains that Cruise wakes up and lives a great life and argues theory and morality when it's the soldiers that have to go out there are put their asses on the line. He was taking the stance that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. In Santiago's case, it was unfortuante. And in the trial, the two marines would be sacrificed to keep the corp moving along. When Cruise was finished, Nicholson's character was to be brought up on charges, that one guy killed himself, Santiago was still dead, and the two marines went to jail anyway. As a viewer, you were to decide if you were okay with that.

all well and good... but why is nicholson giving this speech to Tom Cruise who's trying to save the two men who gave the code red? Nothing Tom Cruise does in the movie in any way gives the impression he's against code reds. If code reds were "good" that only supports Tom Cruise's case... If Santiago's death is insignificant, that only supports Tom Cruise's case to save Santiago's killers.

The two marines don't go to jail. They are dishonorably discharged from the marines, but they're free to go.

[Edited 8/13/10 8:17am]

Cruise was defending the Marines. Kevin Bacon was prosecuting. Bacon was trying to get this thing done and out of the way. Cruise was trying to show that it wasn't the Marines deciding for themselves to do a Code Red, it was the system (brass) that allowed it and encourages it. In essence, Cruise was arguing that the military was corrupt. Nicholson was arguing that reality isn't a bouqet of roses. They they have to play dirty sometimes to get the job done.

And I'm pretty sure the Marines went to jail. They did kill a guy. And the one soldier explains to his partner that they do need to be subject to justice. Just because you're told to do something "amoral", doesn't mean you HAVE to do it. That was part of the beauty in having the black man say this to the white man and them having that epiphany.

crazydoctor said:

Dauphin said:

why exactly? this is what I don't get.

It's the way of the Jedi. They are taught that fear, anger, etc. are paths to the Dark Side. How could Luke redeem himself after killing his father? There would always be that guilt, and anger in him. At some point or another, he would eventually turn to the Dark Side even if he didn't give in to the Emperor right then and there. Standing at that road, Luke decided to have faith in the goodness within his father.

ernestsewell said:

Dauphin said:

John Conner was the target. The T-1000 was using Sarah to draw him out of hiding. They were trained to complete the objective and that is a tactic that would be in their arsenal. He wasn't just a killing machine. As you noted, he would lie, spy, and manipulate to gain advantages. Sarah Conner had more value to him alive at that point to get John Conner out of hiding. If he would have gotten to her at another point, then maybe he would have just killed her.

I'm sorry that I disagree, but that's not really a plot hole. The fact that he's more than an instant killing machine and can make almost human like decisions (kidnapping, torture, etc) is a foil to the Arnold model whose AI matures to having a friendship John Conner.

But the T-1000 could take on anyone's APPEARANCE, not just voice. He could have killed Sarah, and impersonated her to find John, then kill him. Remember the phone scene where Arnold is calling home and using John's voice? And the foster mom is talking to him? It's really the terminator, looking and sounding like the foster mom, and the foster mom is dead. Why not do that in the factory? Kill Sarah, impersonate her in body and voice, get close to John and just kill him. That's a major hole. He doesn't need Sarah to get closer to John to kill him. Just become Sarah.

Exactly.

Dauphin to your point about getting John out of hiding. That's exactly what he does two minites later. But if he's willing to do it two minutes later when she got away, why not just do it the first time around and not risk things going wrong? (Which of course, they conveniently did). I just can not buy it is because of some lofty higher agena to extract more information from either of them before he offs them. That's not his M.O.

For me, the answer is painfully simple. Don't want to kill the heroine off in a Hollywood blockbuster if you don't HAVE to.....

Dauphin said:

crazydoctor said:

why exactly? this is what I don't get.

It's the way of the Jedi. They are taught that fear, anger, etc. are paths to the Dark Side. How could Luke redeem himself after killing his father? There would always be that guilt, and anger in him. At some point or another, he would eventually turn to the Dark Side even if he didn't give in to the Emperor right then and there. Standing at that road, Luke decided to have faith in the goodness within his father.

I understand that he'd turn to the Dark Side after killing his father. But why does that mean he'd join the Emperor? just because they're both on the dark side doesn't mean they have to be allies.

Fenwick said:

The only other one I can think of for a major blockbuster like that is Gladiator. And on that one, I'm not 100% certain, but I 've never had anyone explain it to me in a way that removes my doubt. But if you don't potentially want this one spoiled for you either, read no further.

Near the end of Gladiator. Joaquin Phoenix is playing at swords with his nephew. They begin to spar and Joaquin inquires about his nephew's aspisrations with sword play. He asks him if he wants to be at his uncle's side protecting him from future attacks.

Yet the nephew categorically says, no, he wants to be a gladiator like Russell Crowe, "the saviour of rome".

Dramatic pause - deathly stare from Joaquin - fear in the kid's eyes. Oops he just gave away the secret.

Me - staring incredulously at the screen. Huh? Are we supposed to believe that the future of Rome hangs in the balance of a ten year old kid's ability to keep a secret? What was that conversation like? Did mommy sit him down and say, "Listen son, we're going to kill your uncle in a week or two and be rid of him forever. Just don't tell anyone ok? Night night".

Again - beyond ridiculous to me. Not that that movie was anything stellar to begin with, but after seeing that scene, I can't look at it the same way.

Understand that Caesar is supposed to be the MOST loved, feared, respected, and everything. So when the popularity of a Gladiator has supplanted him, COMBINED with the reality that the Spaniard actually supposed to be the true ruler of Rome... That's what made him freak out. He realized that even those close to him would support Maximus. Where would he ever hear the phrase "savoiur of Rome"? You have to imagine that the number of people allowed access to his nephew were very few in number.

It played to his paranoia, and confirmed his suspictions. Nobody loved him, and his power was waning. He would have to kill Maximus in front of the people to regain his stature.

[Edited 8/13/10 8:49am]

Dauphin said:

Fenwick said:

The only other one I can think of for a major blockbuster like that is Gladiator. And on that one, I'm not 100% certain, but I 've never had anyone explain it to me in a way that removes my doubt. But if you don't potentially want this one spoiled for you either, read no further.

Near the end of Gladiator. Joaquin Phoenix is playing at swords with his nephew. They begin to spar and Joaquin inquires about his nephew's aspisrations with sword play. He asks him if he wants to be at his uncle's side protecting him from future attacks.

Yet the nephew categorically says, no, he wants to be a gladiator like Russell Crowe, "the saviour of rome".

Dramatic pause - deathly stare from Joaquin - fear in the kid's eyes. Oops he just gave away the secret.

Me - staring incredulously at the screen. Huh? Are we supposed to believe that the future of Rome hangs in the balance of a ten year old kid's ability to keep a secret? What was that conversation like? Did mommy sit him down and say, "Listen son, we're going to kill your uncle in a week or two and be rid of him forever. Just don't tell anyone ok? Night night".

Again - beyond ridiculous to me. Not that that movie was anything stellar to begin with, but after seeing that scene, I can't look at it the same way.

Understand that Caesar is supposed to be the MOST loved, feared, respected, and everything. So when the popularity of a Gladiator has supplanted him, COMBINED with the reality that the Spaniard actually supposed to be the true ruler of Rome... That's what made him freak out. He realized that even those close to him would support Maximus. Where would he ever hear the phrase "savoiur of Rome"? You have to imagine that the number of people allowed access to his nephew were very few in number.

It played to his paranoia, and confirmed his suspictions. Nobody loved him, and his power was waning. He would have to kill Maximus in front of the people to regain his stature.

[Edited 8/13/10 8:49am]

But the next scene is him confronting his sister telilng her - "someone's been a very busy bee", or something to that effect.

The insinuation is that he sat his nephew down and heard the whole story.

I could be wrong, I only saw it once. But again, no one has explained that jump to me in a way that implies it was anything but that. In which case, the entire premise of the end is completely ridiculous to me.

Who would ever tell their 10 year old kid they are about to murder someone for political reasons?

Fenwick said:

ernestsewell said:

But the T-1000 could take on anyone's APPEARANCE, not just voice. He could have killed Sarah, and impersonated her to find John, then kill him. Remember the phone scene where Arnold is calling home and using John's voice? And the foster mom is talking to him? It's really the terminator, looking and sounding like the foster mom, and the foster mom is dead. Why not do that in the factory? Kill Sarah, impersonate her in body and voice, get close to John and just kill him. That's a major hole. He doesn't need Sarah to get closer to John to kill him. Just become Sarah.

Exactly.

Dauphin to your point about getting John out of hiding. That's exactly what he does two minites later. But if he's willing to do it two minutes later when she got away, why not just do it the first time around and not risk things going wrong? (Which of course, they conveniently did). I just can not buy it is because of some lofty higher agena to extract more information from either of them before he offs them. That's not his M.O.

For me, the answer is painfully simple. Don't want to kill the heroine off in a Hollywood blockbuster if you don't HAVE to.....

Oh definately, it was a plot that was adjusted to fit the screen. But since it DID happen the way it did, you have to fill in those "plot holes" with logical reasoning. Sometimes, plot holes require SO MUCH of a leap in logic. In this case, I don't think it takes that much. Obviously, the T-1000 decided to use Sarah as bait. That tactic didn't work, so he impersonated her (as you said). That didn't work, so he WAS going to kill her, but Arnold started blowing him away with a shotgun.

Somehow, in his programming, using Sarah as bait must have yeilded a higher probability of sucess in that environment.

It also goes back to the T-1000 as a foil for Arnold. If Arnold is capable of "evolving" to be a friend for John. Why can't all machines do the same? Well, as we see, the T-1000 was pretty "unsavable". That would hint that most machines would be bent on the destruction of humanity.

[Edited 8/13/10 8:57am]

crazydoctor said:

Dauphin said:

It's the way of the Jedi. They are taught that fear, anger, etc. are paths to the Dark Side. How could Luke redeem himself after killing his father? There would always be that guilt, and anger in him. At some point or another, he would eventually turn to the Dark Side even if he didn't give in to the Emperor right then and there. Standing at that road, Luke decided to have faith in the goodness within his father.

I understand that he'd turn to the Dark Side after killing his father. But why does that mean he'd join the Emperor? just because they're both on the dark side doesn't mean they have to be allies.

(Star Wats geek time:

The novels go into more detail. Vader & Palpatine played mind games with each other(Vader found out Luke was his son in between ANH & ESB, but he feigned surprise when the Emperor told him about Luke's parentage). Each had their own plans for Luke(there can only be two Sith, master & apprentice) - Palpatine wanted a new apprentice(he was disappointed that Vader lost to Obi-Wan and would never reach his full potential because of his injuries). Vader wanted Palpatine gone so he and Luke could rule the Empire, and he was weary of being under Palpatine's control.

Palpatine's scheme almost worked - Luke was about to deliver the killing blow to his father until the Emperor's boasting snapped him out of his rage and brought him back to the light.