This is something that has always had me scratching my head.

In an episode during Avatar Aang’s series, he encounters a Lion turtle that gives him energy bending, and the Turtle says the following:

“In the era before the avatar, we bent not the elements, but the energy within ourselves”.

Fast forward to the Legend of Korra series, and we are following the first Avatar, Wan.

The first thing he does to acquire an element (to go on a hunting trip) is go to a Lion Turtle. The Lion touches his head, and he is now able to use Fire.

Now I have a hypothetical question. I want you to imagine that Katara, a waterbending master by the end of Aang’s series, was sent back to Avatar Wan’s time.

Without the assistance of a Lion Turtle, how do you become a bender in Avatar Wan’s time?

Can someone explain to me why Carl Frederickson hitting someone with his cane results in him being forced to go to a retirement village? There’s no way they could force him to sell his home as the result of an assault charge, right?

I posted this to the Dune subreddit but it seems to fit here. The r/dune folks suggested the whole thing just shows how afraid the Emperor was of the Atreides house, but the whole point is that we know Leo has no interest in plotting against him and the plot is drastically disproportionate.

I have only read the first Dune novel, but I don’t understand how the conspiracy at the center of the novel benefits any of the players involved. It really isn’t clear WHY the emperor wants House Atreides removed—according to Paul it’s because Leto is getting much influence over the other Great Houses, but evidently that influence is entirely based on self-interest because none of them help when Leto is sent into an obvious trap, so whatever loyalty issues the Emperor has with those Houses will remain even after the Atreides are all dead. (Later in the novel Hawaï says the reason the Emperor wanted to destroy the Atreides was that he was afraid they would use the Fremen to create an all-powerful army, which makes even less sense)

From the Emperor’s standpoint, he is removing a level-headed, honorable man who he likes personally but is becoming too influential, in order to give the most evil person on the galaxy complete power over him, since if the Baron ever reveals his involvement in the plan he would be deposed. But even if the Baron does stay loyal, word could still leak out (which it does, requiring Count Fenring to pay hundreds of millions in bribes to cover it up). His best case is removing the influence of someone who wasn’t opposed to him in the first place. His worst case is getting overthrown by the Landsraad if anyone ever finds out what happened, or being overthrown by the last people loyal to Leto which is what happens…even aside from Paul, had a few more of Lego’s officers escaped they could have revealed the truth and been believed. Lots of ways for things to go poorly, marginal gains if they go well.

The Harkonnens at least get to eliminate an enemy, but at the cost of sixty years of spice revenue. Maybe that would be worth it in a vacuum (although it would seem to make them sitting ducks for rival houses), but it also means the Emperor is now considering wiping out the Harkonnens as well so they can’t betray his involvement (which Fenring confirms). Also, the spice production is now uncertain due to the war so even more pressure is now on the Harkonnens, since if the Emperor gives Arrakis to another House to manage they are truly screwed since they now have no (or little) income.

The Fremen are the only ones who seem to become smarter as a result of the scheme, since they have allowed the Harkonnens to oppress and mass murder them for decades, in spite of the fact that they are infinitely better fighters than any group in the galaxy, outnumber the outworlders on Arrakis, AND already produce a lot of spice to give to the guild, so you’d expect them to be able to negotiate favorable terms with the empire to sell them spice in return for being left alone. Thankfully Paul is able to show that to them, which allows them to conquer the entire galaxy.

Am I missing something? It truly does seem that the plot to eliminate the Atreides family is all downside and little upside for the Emperor and Harkonnens.

Per our lord and savior wikipedia:

It was an absolute fucking nightmare. The week before shooting, I was told I was going to have to shoot the original draft of the screenplay, which didn't work. Furthermore, I was sent a lawyer's letter saying I couldn't tell this to the studio and would be sued if I tried to communicate it to them. I was able to squirrel away half-a-million dollars to do re-shoots, but the story still makes no sense. No sense at all.

- John McTiernan

So let's gawk.

Section 8 are aware that drugs are being smuggled from this military base. They obtain fake identities and get themselves assigned to the base to investigate. They prove that the drugs are being smuggled and report this information to Sammy J, who informs the base commander, who does nothing and thus implies that he is in on it.

To prove that the base commander is smuggling drugs they...go out into a hurricane, fake the deaths of most of the squad, and have two of them swap identities (for...some reason that is never adequately explained...). Samuel coincidentally decides this is a great time to give up his life and vanish into the jungle to do special ops with Section 8 (because why not!?)

They create a set of circumstances where the base commander is likely to call in John Travolta to help. Then John does a whole bunch of stuff that the base commander isn't present for in order to "figure out what's going on". He confronts the base commander with information that he already had at the start (that the commander was smuggling drugs), and records what the base commander said to implicate him.

Essentially, John Travolta spends most of the movie having a series of pointless conversations with his squad mates, in the presence of another person who was entirely superfulous to the operation. Sort of raises the question of why he didn't just, you know, go confront the base command to start with and save all this bother?

And one last thing, at the very beginning John Travolta is having a private conversation on the phone about how he is on leave from the DEA while they investigate the accusation that he took a bribe. But it was established at the end that this was all a cover story to help him extract info from the commander. So who the hell was he talking to? And similarly, why was sammy giving that whole lecture in the helicopter when everybody he was talking to knew this was a ruse? Putting on a show for the helicopter pilots?

It was kinda fun wondering what the movie was going to pull out of its ass next, but boy was this incomprehensible.

Not much of a thrilling spoiler, but in Barbra Kingsolver's Demon Copperhead, the main character Demon starts working at Sonic Drive-In around the 421 page mark.

"Making my fortune down at Sonic, one Red Bull Slush at a time."

I was stopped in my tracks to behold this repugnant error. Having siblings that worked at Sonic 10+ years that used to retell every single detail of their day, I knew something was up.

Let's get the facts straight.

• Demon was born in the late 1980s. Let's assume 1989, at the latest. By the time he has his job at Sonic Drive-In he has quit his sophomore year of high school. This brings him to about 15-16 years old.
• This brings us to Barbra Kingsolver believing the Red Bull Slush was around in 2004-2005.
• This is so deeply wrong. According to this CNBC article, the Red Bull Slush came out in 2019!

tsk tsk tsk

So I haven't finished watching the movie, but we got to a certain part where it just makes absolutely no sense and wanted to see if anyone can explain that it's not a plot hole.

So, spoilers if you haven't watched the movie at all obviously, but:

While there are a number of things they haven't explained yet, I'm willing to accept that they'll get to it eventually. After Grace and Sarah agree to go to Texas, Dani states that she knows how to get to Laredo, TX, because her uncle's a coyote. They go to some train yard and they're going to use that train to get to her uncle's house. All of this makes sense for the most part.

HOWEVER, we then get a scene where the new mimetic Terminator is downloading the information from cameras and whatnot in Mexico City, finds Dani on top of that train, **and then somehow figures out that they're trying to get to Laredo TX**. There's no conversation that he could be lip-reading, the train itself is NOT going to Laredo TX, so that's not why either. He just somehow knows where they're going, which makes NO sense.

Did no one use locktite on them bolts? Did they not rust together? You ever tried to move a rusted bolt????

Shaw could've easily escaped simply by blinking fast. If I was Erik, I actually wouldn't want to kill him, I'd want him to live to suffer. But I still would kill him, because I'd know there would be no other way to stop him and save innocent lives. The writers never revealed what the actual plan was, because they knew there was no plan that would possibly work. They wanted to maintain Charles as the anti-killing good guy. It would've been much more interesting if they had a young idealistic guy be forced to accept that sometimes killing is the only option.

1. why is everyone such an asshole to Ralph if they know that him destroying the building is his job

2. why was everybody worried about Ralph if it was stated that it wasnt the first time something like that didn't happened

3. how the hell did Ralph make the out of order sign fall if he's in a video game

4. how did the cybugs break into another games code

5. if going turbo is bad why is it so normalized to do so

I'm not a comic book fan, so I couldn't care less whether or not Batman kills in movies. I don't care that in Batman Returns he strapped a bomb to an unarmed henchman and smiled about it. I wouldn't care if they made him a full on murderous anti-hero like Deadpool. Just don't treat your viewers like idiots.

Some people complain about Batman killing TwoFace in The Dark Knight, but I don't think it's fair to complain about that. I think the point of that is to show that Joker won by making Batman break his no killing rule. The problem is they act like it's the only time he broke his no killing rule, when it clearly isn't.

In Batman Begins, he refused to execute the man, but then he burned down the League of Shadows, killing many people. I'm sure the man he refused to execute died too.

Later, he told Gordon to blow up the train tracks, knowing it would kill Ra's al Ghul. The line "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you" is the most pathetic justification. That would be like tying him up, paying a hitman to shoot him, and saying "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you from the hit I ordered".

In The Dark Knight Rises, he literally shot rockets at Talia and the driver, killing them both. Seriously, how can you even attempt to logically justify that one? I know it was legally and morally justified, he had to get the bomb, what I mean is how is that not clearly a violation of his no killing rule?

Really, that's the most annoying thing, the Nolan fanboys refusing to acknowledge this obvious serious flaw. Believe it or not, I actually love the Dark Knight trilogy, no movie is perfect, just admit Nolan made a serious error with that one. If he had Batman shoot a man in the head with a sniper, I think we all know they'd still attempt to justify it. They'd say "he didn't kill him, he just chose not to save him from his bullet". It reminds me of the scene in Collateral, where Max says "You killed him?", and Vincent says "No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."

Near the end there are a couple points where TLJ figures out BdT's location with, as far as I can tell, no explanation.

The first and most obvious is when TLJ is following BdT, who then hides behind the budget van and changes direction after TLJ passes him. The next scene, TLJ is standing next to some grass in the park looking at footprints. It's like there's a scene missing explaining how he picked up the trail again.

The second one, and maybe I just missed it, is how TLJ finds BdT when he disappears into the woods after jumping into the river. He had lots of time and lots of points of egress. He should have disappeared.

Unrelated, I do not believe that BdT could have forged a reasonable quality knife with the tools available to him. That fire was weaksauce, how did he temper it, where was his grinding wheel.

I was re-watching the movie with the kids and I noticed when they were at the scene where gingy, the pigs, wolf and etc were watching Knights in shrek's place. But if it could a really long time for shrek and Fiona to get to far far away then how did they do it so quickly to save shrek and donkey?

I love, I LOVE, plot twists, I've seen many films and some series like Mr Robot with exceptional twists where you're like "that's it, I understand everything". at the moment I'm watching "the twilight zone" and I really like the idea of ​​anthology series (episodes that don't follow each other), and I was wondering, are there any anthology series based on the plot twist, where each episode contains 1 more or less worked but to have this joy of understanding everything at the last minute in each episode. I also just take series with crazy twists like Mr Robot

Was I just way too high when I watched this movie or did anyone else find it not making sense?! The 'non-linear' approach with poor attempts to differentiate timelines was confusing and took away from the story. When Tobias arrives unannounced at the baby shower, I perceived this as he didn't know she was pregnant. Then they were trying for a baby?!? And she didn't want kids... then went through IVF & heartbreak trying to conceive to never have a one on one conversation with her daughter in the movie and risk her health for a cooking competition?!?! Huhuhuuhuh wtf

Watched the prequel movie then did some reading on the origin of the aliens. They came from "a distant planet that was destroyed and they hung on to meteors that ended up landing on Earth."

• What force could have possibly caused the destruction of a planet but also left living beings on fragments of that planet, along with enough of their food source to last them as long as they needed to hurl randomly across outer space.

• I can accept maybe they can survive having no oxygen and don't need water-- they're aliens after all. But the next closest planet to Earth is over 6 billion miles away, so this planet would have been even farther. So the aliens were just cruising on these meteors for hundreds or thousands of years?

• Meteors entering Earth's atmosphere hit about 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, which is hot as lava. These things would just shrug off lava?

• Meteors impact Earth at the absolute slowest at 25,000 mph. Considering they were killed by a shotgun blast, they would 100% be liquidated upon impacting Earth. The movie would never start. They'd all be goo.

• Skipping all that stupid stuff, they landed in what, Mexico and Manhattan and Shanghai? And that caused the world to collapse?

• There's no way meteor shower covered the entire planet so every island nation would be completely unaffected. Indonesia, Australia, England, Iceland, Greenland, the Caribbean, Japan. Also not like they can cover that much ground so most of the world would have had plenty of time to prep as needed. Considering they fell in China they would just need to blow up the bridges on the Suez Canal and Africa would be a safe haven for all eternity.

• In A Quiet Place: Day One, nothing made any sense. They are completely blind yet expertly climbing skyscrapers and leaping around like Spiderman. Why aren't they drawn to the noise they all make as they travel around-- you'd think they'd be sprinting to each others' location nonstop whenever they smash some glass or bonk a car. Somehow they zone in only on sounds humans make.

• The military could just drop a noisemaker in an open area and bomb it or have a few gunships clear the entire crowd. They could do the same thing from boats. Unless these things reproduce at an alarming rate they'd be cleared out pretty quick.

I enjoyed the first movie a bit despite some small absurdities, but this prequel and the explanation of their origins just made it go off the rails.

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?

This content has been overwritten.

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?