In the end of the film, the crypt-keeper reveals that the stories he just told previously happened, and the five people listening have "died without repentance".

Why is it that Ralph (whose wife wished him alive forever, hence she is unable to end his suffering when he wakes covered in embalming fluid) who is now essentially immortal, in Hell? If all the other people there are dead, why is he there to begin with?

Again, spoilers.

Ray Romano and Lisa Kudrow play parents who son has died. It is eventually revealed that the son has been burglarizing local houses. Their daughter shoots him when he attempts to get back into the family home and she thinks he's a burglar trying to break in.

The last episode shows that he took the jewelry of the neighbor(whom he is also sleeping with). She witnesses him take it, and chases him out of her house. She follows him to his house and right when he enters the house, shoots him in the back. She fired the shot from the sidewalk outside the house.

Denis Leary plays Ray Romano's brother. He is a career criminal. He helps them clean up the crime scene inside the house and takes the blame for the shooting(I think). Part of the evidence is one of the bullet casings from the neighbors gun(a completely different type of gun).

Someone help me out here. I'm sure I missed something. If everyone in the family thought the crime was committed in the house, and gathered up the evidence, how did Denis Leary find a casing that would've been outside the house, in the front yard, and 50 to 100 feet away from crime scene?

When they get attacked by pirates, Maui tells Moana to, "tighten the halyard, bind the stays". This scene is used to show Moana can't sail, but.. it also shows that Maui doesn't actually know much about sailing either.

The sail is fully raised, no reason to tighten the halyard, if anything, they should loosen the halyard a touch to round the sail since they are clearly sailing downwind.

"Bind the stays" is just meaningless. The rigging is up, there wouldn't be any reason to mess with it and Maui never does anything with it.

All Maui does is ease out the sheet, which does make sense.. but I'm not sure how they did all that sailing (or escaped the pirates) when clearly neither actually understands boats.

Semi /s for those that need it.

I just watched this on a flight and now I have a short list.

1. Where do the xenomorphs get the mass for their much larger bodies?
2. The chest-burster is about a kilo, then it molts, and we see a much larger mass pupating on the wall. Minutes later it's a man-sized xenomorph that has to weigh 60-80kg.
3. The black goo baby fits in a watermelon sized package. Turn around and it's bigger than most grown men.
4. Planetary rings that are not just densely packed but a ridiculously thick ring solid ice that looks like a poorly groomed ski slope.
5. People know that synthetics can't hurt people (though they can sacrifice 3 to save 12), but Rook is quite happy to kill to deliver the goo to the company.
6. Giant space station is in two parts for isolation/quarantine. Cool. But the only corridor between the two parts goes right past a rather fragile door with the most dangerous macro-pathogen humans have ever seen on the other side?
7. Cryo-suspension of apocalyptic pathogen can be interrupted easily and there's no system in place to destroy the pathogen before containment failure.
8. Station has large quantities of fuel available but can't maneuver to avoid collision.
9. Station drifted into colony system. One civilian owned ore transport saw it, landed on planet, returned to orbit, docked, chaos happened, without any other company ship seeing it?

About half of this is plot armor, but it's dumb plot armor.

I'm surprised no one's talking about the major plot holes in this movie. I'm assuming you've watched this movie if you're reading this but just a quick recap in case you've forgotten.

1. Dr. Banks, desperate to clear his name, decides to bluff Dr. Siebert by pretending Emily confessed everything under the influence of Amytal, a truth-inducing drug.
2. Dr. Siebert panics and counters by blackmailing Banks with fake photographs implying an affair between him and Emily. She offers a deal: if Banks doesn’t expose her, she won’t release the photos.
3. Banks and Siebert meet to negotiate. Banks refuses the deal because his career and reputation are already ruined. Siebert, who has far more to lose, becomes increasingly panicked. Banks walks away with leverage.
4. Banks then convinces Emily that he and Siebert have partnered up to keep her in the psych ward and split her money. To make the bluff convincing, Banks arranges a meeting with Siebert in a location visible to Emily, where they shake hands. Emily buys it.
5. Believing Siebert has betrayed her, Emily strikes a deal with Banks: she will help him incriminate Siebert (thus clearing his name) and presumably, a cut of her money in exchange for her freedom. Banks agrees.
6. Emily wires up and helps get Siebert incarcerated. However, Banks puts Emily back into the psych ward anyway, for revenge.

Here are the major plot holes:

1. The entire premise of Siebert’s panic hinges on her believing that Banks gave Emily Amytal and that Emily spilled everything. Who told Siebert about the Amytal in the first place? Obviously not Emily, because if so, Siebert would also know Banks learned nothing.
2. If Banks truly got a full confession from Emily under Amytal, why doesn’t he immediately go to the police or court? Showing up at Siebert’s practice reeks of desperation and makes it obvious he doesn’t have solid evidence. What gives Siebert any reason to panic?
3. Emily offers to help incriminate Siebert and clear Banks' name in exchange for her freedom. She says "it's a better deal." How exactly is it better? From Emily's perspective, Banks' partnership with Siebert was motivated by money. He presumably chose money over his reputation. The only way Emily's deal would be better is if she offered to clear his name AND a cut from her share, but if Siebert gets incarcerated, the money from their scheme will almost certainly be confiscated, including Emily’s share.

Dr. Siebert and Emily's actions really make no sense to me and they just seem like major plotholes. Can anyone explain please?

Hello everyone, hey, I have some questions that I would like to ask the Jews, the Catholics and the Muslims in Gilead?

Did the rest of the world also suffer from infertility?

What happened to Mexico and Canada?

Giliead is an Aryan white supremacist society in the book?

In this movie two exorcists try to get rid of a ghost from a family home. In one scene, the basement is flooded and one of the exorcists is helping the mum clear the water. The mum is attacked by the ghost and a clear bite mark is left on her arm, and a few seconds later some false teeth drops into the water next to them. There is then a long close up shot of the exorcist picking up the false teeth and holding it next to the bite mark, and it matches perfectly.

The very next scene of this movie is one of the children living in the house faking a possession, and the exorcists decide to leave the house because they think the family has been lying to them.

So my question is what the fuck is that exorcist thinking??? Does he think there is just a man swimming around under the house attacking people??? How is that not clear evidence of haunting?!?!? This has been driving me crazy!!!!!!!!

Basically the title

So Helen obviously invited Benoit Blanc to the island and I was wondering how Blanc got the invitation. At the beginning of the movie Blanc is questioning Miles and Miles says he only had 5 boxes made. Helen destroyed hers and Blanc said he got a box and “solved the children’s puzzles” to get the invitation, so I’m wondering how he got the box/invitation? Is this just truly a plot hole? Is it just to throw us off Helen’s trail?

Sorry for the longish post.  Spoilers, of course.

De Armas takes Affleck and their daughter on a picnic to the same spot where he just killed and poorly hid the body of her lover.  This must be a coincidence.  At this point, there is no reason for her to think that her lover has been killed, never mind hidden near this very spot.  On the way home, she tells Affleck that she forgot her scarf at the spot, and he offers to go back for it in the morning.  That night she tells Affleck that she spoke to Tracy Letts on the phone.  This is a dude who is investigating Affleck, with de Armas's help (although it is questionable how serious she is in this regard), for possibly killing a preceding lover of hers.  She presumably tells him about the picnic.  In the morning, Affleck goes back to the spot for the scarf and to hide the body better, where he is caught in the act by Letts, who has also found the scarf. 

My question is, why is Letts there?  I presumed that he followed Affleck.  But people seem to think that he is there because de Armas sent him there.  Also, why would he follow him? Letts had a private investigator follow Affleck for days before and he couldn't find anything on him. And what would there be to find? The preceding murder, if it was a murder, was at a pool party in someone's house. And would Affleck, who is cycling on a empty woodland path, not notice a car following him? I can see why people seem to think that de Armas sent Letts there, given that the movie emphasizes the point of letting us know that de Armas and Letts spoke the night before.  This is also the case in the book (de Armas's character sends Letts's character to the spot), but in the book de Armas's lover has been missing for some time and she has reason to think that he has been killed.  Could she have noticed that Affleck was odd at the picnic?  One, we are not shown this.  Two, even if she did think so, again, her lover is not missing at this point.  Three, de Armas is shocked when she finds out the truth later on, implying that she did not suspect anything at this point.  Four, if she sent Letts to catch Affleck in the act, why did she tell Affleck that she spoke to Letts to begin with. And, five, de Armas is nice towards Affleck after the picnic, not something you do if you think he killed the lover you were planning on eloping with.  

This brings up a side question.  De Armas is nice towards Affleck during and after the picnic.  In the book, this is an attempt by de Armas's character to use niceness to draw Affleck's character into confessing (to being a killer).  She does not do this in the movie, but why is she nice to him in the movie?  Co-incidentally (or maybe not) this was the first time we see her being nice to her daughter, who she resented up to this point.  Why the change of heart?

To sum, my main question is:  What reason would there be for Letts to be at the spot?  If de Armas sent him there, what reason would she have for this?

Thanks in advance. 

Ethan Embry’s character notes early on that he has been following Melanie’s design career but is then shocked to learn later that she has been pretending to be a part of his family and goes by their name (Carmichael instead of Smooter) professionally. If he ever read a single thing about her he would’ve seen her identified as Melanie Carmichael.

In fresh off the boat season 3 takes place in 1996-97 they talk about biggie dying in that same episode eddies friend talks about how he helped him through LeBron leaving Cleveland that was in 2010 also in that same episode they talk about playing trivial pursuit the edition they play is made in 2015 the year the show is released???

in the year without a santa clause, when jingle, jangle, and the kid who's name escapes me go to the mayor to get him to let vixen out of the pound, the mayor is understandably skeptical about how the two of them are elves, vixen is a reindeer, and they need to get back to the north pole. however, he agrees to believe them if they make it snow in southtown, though he still doesn't believe them. then, he proceeds to go out into the town and sing a whole fucking musical number about how it's going to snow in southtown. this obviously begs the question of, if the mayor doesn't think it's going to happen, why is he singing a song about how it IS going to happen?

Warning: Spoilers of the movie "Oblivion" are present throughout the post.

When Jack-49 went missing, Vika-49 immediately asked mission control to find a drone to find him and the drone almost immediately found a DNA trail. But when Jack-49 went missing after meeting with Vika-52, he then goes to Julia and then proceeds to what I think is a night in his lodge, yet it's only in the next day when Jack-49 went to the humans Scavs hide out that a scene showed that fancy touchscreen and the drones being scrambled to find Javk-49. Same could be said about Jack-52, why wasn't Vika-52 watching him through his plane and when the drones were scrambled, why didn't they pick up on Jack-52's DNA trail before they picked up on Jack 49's trail?

Groundhog day is on tv, and I just noticed that on day 3 or 4 when Phil pick some guys in boaling club and they end up driving on railroad, there is train coming. but there should be no trains because of blizzard. if road are closed, railroads are also closed.

So Kevin Bacon is a college basketball assistant coach who sees video of a potential basketball prospect currently in Africa. He makes the case that he should make a recruiting trip out to Africa to meet this kid. His boss, the head coach, denies him and tells him instead he will go to Boise to scout a low level tournament. The very next scene is Kevin Bacon on a bus in Kenya. It is never explained how he got out of going to Boise. Did he just ditch it altogether and went to Africa on his own dime and didn't tell anyone? He sends a video back to his boss showing him with the prospective player and he isn't in any lick of trouble for disobeying.

TL:DR at bottom

The Spider-Verse films present a universe where “canon events” are sacrosanct—a belief that certain tragedies must happen to Spider-People for the multiverse to remain stable. While compelling on the surface, this narrative foundation crumbles under scrutiny, revealing inconsistencies, flawed logic, and narrative oversights. These flaws undermine the Spider-Society's doctrine and expose the dangers of blind adherence to unproven rules. Through observations like Noir’s Rubik’s Cube dilemma, Mayday Parker’s paradoxical existence, and Miguel O’Hara’s correlation-causation fallacy, the film raises deeper questions about fate, free will, and whether the Spider-Verse truly needs its rigid “canon” to survive.

1. The Correlation-Causation Fallacy at the Heart of Miguel’s Ideology

Miguel O’Hara, leader of the Spider-Society, claims that canon events—moments of loss and tragedy—are essential for the stability of each universe. His conviction stems from his own experience of inhabiting another Spider-Man’s universe, which ultimately collapsed. However, his belief is riddled with a classic correlation-causation fallacy: the assumption that because tragic events are a common factor in Spider-People’s growth, they must also cause multiversal stability.

• Flawed Logic: Miguel’s conclusions lack concrete evidence. Universes collapsing may not be tied to deviations from canon, but rather other unknown factors. By asserting causation, Miguel perpetuates a flawed system that enforces suffering without justification.
• Blind Faith: Miguel’s followers accept his claims without question, creating a dangerous cult-like structure. The Spider-Society’s blind loyalty mirrors real-world examples of systems that operate on unverified dogma, stifling critical thought and innovation.

2. Noir’s Rubik’s Cube: A Symbol of Overlooked Chaos

At the end of Into the Spider-Verse, Spider-Man Noir takes a Rubik’s Cube back to his black-and-white 1930s universe, introducing an entirely new concept of color to a world that previously lacked it. While this moment is played for humor, its implications are profound.

• Unintended Consequences: By introducing a multiversal artifact, Noir fundamentally disrupts the natural order of his universe, sparking potential changes that should—under Miguel’s rules—trigger instability. Yet, this is ignored, exposing the arbitrariness of canon enforcement.
• Narrative Oversight: This moment reveals a contradiction: if small deviations like preventing a death can destroy a universe, why do larger disruptions like Noir’s Rubik’s Cube go unnoticed? This inconsistency undermines the credibility of the Spider-Society’s rules.

3. Mayday Parker’s Existence: A Paradox of Canon

Peter B. Parker’s infant daughter, Mayday, represents another glaring inconsistency. In his original timeline, Peter’s arc is defined by loss and failure, leading to his separation from Mary Jane. Yet, by the events of Across the Spider-Verse, Peter reconciles with MJ and has a child—a clear deviation from his “canon.”

• Selective Enforcement: Miguel allows Mayday’s existence to persist, even though it defies the very rules he enforces on others. This suggests either favoritism or an unspoken acknowledgment that canon events are not as immutable as he claims.
• Undermining the Rules: If Mayday’s existence can defy canon without consequences, it raises the question: Are canon events truly necessary for stability, or are they simply a convenient justification for control?

4. The Spider-Society’s Cult of Blind Adherence

The Spider-Society operates as an unquestioning enforcer of Miguel’s ideology, treating his word as gospel. This blind faith is one of the most troubling aspects of the narrative.

• Lack of Proof: Despite the catastrophic consequences Miguel attributes to deviations from canon, no concrete evidence supports his claims. The Spider-Society enforces rules based on fear rather than understanding, perpetuating a system that may not even be necessary.
• Free Will vs. Fate: The rigid enforcement of canon events strips Spider-People of their agency, reducing their lives to preordained scripts. This directly contrasts with the core ethos of Spider-Man: the ability to make choices, even in the face of great power and responsibility.

5. The Larger Implications of Fate vs. Free Will

At its core, the Spider-Verse narrative wrestles with the tension between fate and free will. Miguel’s insistence on maintaining canon events represents a deterministic worldview, where individuals have no control over their destinies. Miles Morales, however, embodies the opposite: the belief that one’s choices—not fate—define who they are.

• Miles as a Challenge to the System: By refusing to accept his “canon fate,” Miles questions the validity of the Spider-Society’s rules and forces others to confront the possibility that their suffering may not have been necessary.
• A System on the Brink of Collapse: The film’s inconsistencies and contradictions—Noir’s Rubik’s Cube, Mayday Parker, and the lack of concrete evidence—suggest that the multiverse may not need rigid adherence to canon. Instead, it may thrive on adaptability and deviation, much like the Spider-People themselves.

Conclusion: A System Built on Flaws

The Spider-Verse’s exploration of multiversal stability and canon events reveals a deeply flawed system. From Miguel O’Hara’s correlation-causation fallacy to the overlooked consequences of Noir’s Rubik’s Cube and the paradoxical existence of Mayday Parker, the narrative exposes the fragility of the Spider-Society’s doctrine. Ultimately, the film challenges viewers to question the validity of rigid systems that demand blind adherence and to embrace the chaos and individuality that define the Spider-People themselves. The multiverse’s true strength may lie not in following a script, but in breaking free from it.

TL:DR

The Spider-Verse’s “canon events” idea doesn’t make sense. Miguel assumes tragedy keeps the multiverse stable, but there’s no proof—it’s just a big misunderstanding. Things like Noir’s Rubik’s Cube adding color to his world and Mayday Parker’s existence break these so-called “rules,” but no one questions them.

The Spider-Society blindly follows Miguel’s flawed system, while Miles shows that free will might matter more than sticking to some “destiny.” The multiverse could work just fine without forcing people to suffer.

TL:DR at bottom

In Sam Raimi's Spider-Man (2002), Peter Parker participates in a wrestling match under the name "Spider-Man" to earn money for a car. During this event, he likely filled out legal paperwork with his personal information, as suggested by the disclaimer he signs before the match. Despite this, no one in the New York Wrestling League (NYWL) or among the audience seems to connect "Spider-Man" the wrestler with the superhero who later gains public attention.

This presents a potential plot hole because Peter had no secret identity to protect at the time and wouldn’t have falsified his information. His victory against Bone Saw was a memorable, historic event, making it hard to believe that no one recognized Spider-Man as the same person from that match. While the movie conveniently ignores this to maintain the story's momentum, it seems implausible that Peter’s identity wouldn’t have been discovered given the circumstances.

[TL:DR] My argument highlights a logical gap in the trilogy, focusing on how easily Spider-Man’s origin could have unraveled through the wrestling match's legal and public visibility, give or take.

So he’s worried that people will make the connection if both he and Spider-Man are seen in Europe. So he’s given a different suit to keep his cover. Why would anybody think that it’s an entirely different hero who happens to have the same powers just because he’s wearing a different suit? No superhero in the MCU is consistent with their suits and they’re not mistaken for some knock off. Even Daredevil switched from that black outfit to his red one, and nobody thinks he’s two different people. Honestly, it would even raise more questions how Spider-Man is not seen in New York during the entire time Peter is on the trip.

The entire premise of the show relies on a present-day increasing worry and something that will likely be an issue needing strategic intervention in the somewhat distant future: infertility/declining birth rates. Gilead rationalizes a fear-mongering dictatorship to force rape as long as it results in pregnancy and childbirth because its ideology is rooted in the extreme belief that the most vital and valuable purpose and mission in life, to humanity, and to god is to create children. In a society where murder, torture, and lack of human rights is allowed for what the Gileadans consider a means to the most important end, is it not objectively sensical to worship the very few, select individuals who can achieve the society's hopes and dreams? Logically, wouldn't the Handmaids in this dystopia be treated like royalty—dieties even—since the culture's ideology also maintains that god specifically chose who is fertile and infertile, and therefore who is capable of curing what they believe is the most pressing issue of the time? The entire show is completely removing logic to create a suspenseful story, but it's so illogical that it can be brainless to continue watching certain scenes because of how impossible the scenario is to happen if even the slightest bit of rational thought was utilized in what's supposed to be an advanced, modern society.

1. Let’s pretend it’s somehow known with 100% certainty that the Handmaids aren’t pregnant. Still, the future of Gilead rests solely in the Handmaids’ hands because they’re literally the only people out of a large population who can save society from their biggest fear and what the people believe is the most pressing issue: infertility. Logically, and throughout all of history and mankind, if a society or social group knows for a fact of someone in their direct environment who functions as the key to their problems, and definitely the key to avoiding their #1 most dangerous future scenario, those individuals are highly valued and receive (justifiable) preferential treatment that’s unattainable to any other person who can't provide this value to society. Aunt Lydia even says this several times in almost every episode where she torments the Handmaids: they were nothing and worthless before but now they need to see how honored and privileged they are to have been chosen by god to be breeding machines, but how completely nonsensical is it that she and everyone who isn't a Handmaid say this, yet they show 0 honor to the people who they believe are honorable..like, what?? The answer to their prayers are the Handmaids and they've been hand picked by god himself to solely function in life as breeding machines, so shouldn’t dishonor (and all the more so, abuse) not only be a blatant dishonor of god that's punishable by death, but also objectively the most illlogical human behavior to exhibit given the context of what they're trying to achieve? God has specifically chosen the Handmaids, and not the vast majority of other women in the population, to be worthy of pregnancy, as Aunt Lydia acknowledges, yet for some reason I can’t grasp why she and Gilead opt for emotional and physical abuse instead of honor and praise except to make a movie out of it? Can there be a logical thought process to adopt this strategy if we lived in the same society and had to come together to make a plan?
2. In reality, scenario 1 is impossible because each handmade could be pregnant at any given moment in the early term because pregnancy tests are illegal. Since Gilead is an advanced society with medical knowledge about pregnancy, they know very well that the biggest risk during pregnancy is by definition the termination of pregnancy before viable birth: miscarriage. It’s well known that stress, shock, anguish, fear, sadness, any acute negative emotional experience increases the risk of a miscarriage, all the more so on a chronic basis throughout the duration of a pregnancy. Give this fact, why would they keep the Handmaids in a constant state of mental and physical anguish that elicits every negative emotion possible? If that’s not illogical enough, the sub-plots push the award for most illogical and impossible to imagine scenario more as if the elephant in the room is less obvious the bigger the elephant becomes: Why would Gilead have the Handmaids be the ones to carry out capital punishment, especially active participation in the stoning to death of not only one of their very own Handmaids (which again jeopardizes the Handmaids’ mental state and therefore their potential baby’s health) but of the one-and-only woman who gave birth to a healthy and viable baby up to that point in time? Killing the one baby maker destroys Gilead's dreams and milestones more than it succeeds in traumatizing any of the Handmaids, so what's any logical argument whatsoever for destroying the only currently living and breathing being in their world that has blatantly shown the ability to make Gilead’s 1 goal in life come one step closer to fruition? What's any logical argument for decreasing the odds of pregnancy to birth via miscarriage?
3. Surrogacy is a known concept to Gilead because they choose to make aspects of it legal and illegal, and they constantly use other countries, like Mexico and Canada, as reference points to justify and logicize their decisions. They clearly have access to and are familiar with events and social dynamics in other parts of the world, so they’d know that there are women in said other countries—and even their own old USA where they lived— where women voluntarily and happily chose to be surrogates by way of sexual intercourse and not in-vitro fertilization, exactly what Gilead believes in. If the Commanders, men in power, and Aunt Lydia spent 1% of their efforts studying what dynamics and circumstances increases the chances of women volunteering for surrogacy as they do in their effort to torment the Handmaids to the point of suicide becoming a dream, they’d know that it’s with some combination of incentive, compensation, and most importantly, altruism: instilling a belief in the greater good beyond oneself, something that’s essentially only a possible achievement in a healthy environment devoid of any traumatic mazes. What’s a logical explanation to compare its society and ideology to places outside Gilead where surrogacy isn’t mandated, and not to compare itself to locations outside Gilead where women opt for it voluntarily? They’d save a ton of resources, money, and carbon emissions they’re obsessed with saving if they didn’t need to police an entire city with vehicles and guns to enforce on people who can act under their own volition under very obviously different circumstances, wouldn't they?

As of now, the only argument I can thinking of is that since the plot is built on a clear disdain for religion, maybe it's meant to be extremely irrational with all the above intentionally built in—with all the massive plot holes—specifically to demonstrate how detrimental religion or a society without rational boundaries can be when it burns through all forms of logical thinking to the point that the people become so self-destructive they're incapable of differentiating good from evil and can no longer recall what they initially aimed to achieve in a bubble and echo chamber where anything can be justified if god is referenced and "Praised Be" is uttered.

So in final destination 2 there’s a kid at a farm place I don’t fully remember but he gets almost killed by a news van but he gets saved by one of the survivors and at the end he gets blown up, now while this seems good I have two major issues with it first the way he was supposed to die by the car was caused by a news van coming for the crash that was caused by the survivors which means if those survivors died he never would have died from that’s news van, and second when the lady almost died in the ambulance everyone (kinda) got erased from the list but not the kid for some reason

What drama or "real world" movies have a plot hole so bad that it can't be over looked ? Most of the movies I see listed in this group are of the supernatural, time travel, or sci-fi genera. While the plot holes in these are legit, they don't hold as much water for me as plot holes in movies based on the real world as we know it.

It was supposed to be “50 years ago” from 2024.. so 1974 or in the 70s but in the flashback scene they play the song “the end of the line” by The Traveling Wilburys on a record player in the flashback but that song came out in 1989

Hello!

I had a clarifying question about the Nightingale book. In chapter 11, Vianne gives the list of people to Captain Beck. Initially, he mentions that she forgets to write down Rachel’s name. How does he know that she is Jewish? Is this mentioned before in the book and I just missed it?

Thank you!

Instead of maneuvering themselves in a time/energy/risky/quiet fashion to get to B1 wing, if zombies are that dumb, why not just bait them with sound and move all of them into a kill zone where zombies' movements are restricted, then go to B wing when all of the zombies are neutralized?

Force them to move in a single body column and lob off their heads or whatever, one by one.

You could argue it would take some time to set up something like that, but in the movie, getting the virus didn't seem to be time sensitive.

You could even argue that it's very risky, but humans with time, and in survival mode, aren't that dumb, and will have contingencies upon contingencies to escape.

As a matter of fact, almost all the zombie movies and TV shows leaves this obvious glaring "plot hole."

Now, not about the movie, IF it was me, and a zombie apocalypse was happening, I would find the highest cliff with a 90 degree overhang, build some sort of thin cantilever bridge thing, put a goat at the end, stick some loud speakers on playing Rick Ashley 24/7, and watch zombies scrambled to get the goat, but fall off the bone breaking cliff. Easy.

Or with no cliff, can easily do this on a pier over an ocean since they can't swim.

Or build a head height head lobbing continuously rotating helicopter style machine.

The last one requires more work, but doable if you want to thin out the horde.

See how I spend most of my time? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

SPOILER: don't read further if you want to watch it without spoilers.

So i saw the movie, gonna say i actually liked it.

Thing that threw me a bit was the ending.

How did he not know the sun was coming?

Like what was the actual plan?

She was supposed to accept him, she did, literally he got everything he wanted but neglected to see the sunrise?

He literally looks out the windows and goes right back to sucking on her.

It seems his scheme went exactly according to plan and he died.

I know the point is supposed to be he didn't stop when he should have and his lust for her blood was his downfall but how did he not consider these things?

She did nothing to delay him, nothing to slow him down, just "take me I'm yours" and he just stayed there til he died.

Am I missing something? What are your thoughts?

So this has been bugging me since I saw the movie. In the land of Oz there are talking animals and actual magic but everyone is freaked out by green skin? There has to be some sort of cultural or historical context we’re missing here. Even as a baby when she was born her parents immediately said something along the lines of “it’s horrible, get it out of here” but maybe it’s a medical issue? If a baby comes out yellow would they also freak out or would they be like “oh, it’s just jaundice, let’s treat it”

Okay did anyone else who read this series feel disappointed about never figuring out who was behind the midnight parties?? I feel like it was Immogen (due to the hits she dropped about being in some kind of other business), but it was never expanded on!! Anyone else??