Were they automatic in the 1970's though?

Yes

Ah FFS.  Ok Mick gets a pass for now.

Ok so what about him getting beheaded in Halloween H20 yet still comes back in later sequels?

Oh and he drives an old banger of a pick up truck in that that had to be manual transmission.  I'll nab that coont yet.

“Maybe somebody round here gave him lessons!”

Sam Loomis suggested it as possible.

I looked this up and he said it

You should change your name to Haddonfield my son

Then her friend dirties her clothes while cooking and has to wash her clothes in the washroom out the back. Yet she has no other clothes in her house that she can wear? 

Who wrote this??  John Sullivan?

Id like to go back to the point of Michael being able to drive ffs. 

His driving in the film is exemplary.  Obeying speed limits, and traffic lights, no crashes. For a psychopath he at least obeys the rules of the road and is a model citizen.  Even if it was an automatic he wouldn't have the cop on to move from  D to R etc and other road rules.   This man stared at a wall for 15 yrs  plotting revenge (for what I don't know)  A bit like Roy Keane.  How would he be able to drive 150 miles back to Haddonfield.  He wouldn't know the way.  He has been locked up since he was a kid. Did he pull over and ask for directions?

Also how are the patients walking around outside at the start of the film?  Michael apparently broke out of the mental institution.  Yet there was no security alert or anything.  No dead bodies at the institution.  No lights.

Perhaps he read and learned about it whilst being locked up, but that in itself is far fetched. 

He doesnt speak, he is a mute (a bit like Shay Given on the pitch) so we can assume he didnt ask anyone about it? 

It's ridiculous. Crazed psychopath locked up for years, breaks free and drives a machine he has zilch experience in, safely 150 miles up the sraid. I'm not having that. It would be like getting onto a bike for the first time and trying to cycle. Couldnt be done but it would be easier than operating a car. 
 

I could be wrong but thought she was babysitting in someone else's house? That scene is hilarious in general though - spills a tiny bit of sauce or something onto her top and subsequently whips off every item of clothing she's wearing. Classic horror fare really.

Trap junior wrote: Also how are the patients walking around outside at the start of the film?  Michael apparently broke out of the mental institution.  Yet there was no security alert or anything.  No dead bodies at the institution.  No lights.

 

Yeah this bit is very odd. They drive there in the lashing rain, the whole time yer man banging on about what an utterly dangerous psycho this one chap is, and then when they get there they're all just roaming around freely. The only thing mental about that particular institution is their security measures.

Also how did he reattach the poster perfectly from the tunnel

This is where pre-editing hasn’t helped the story. There is a 9 minute deleted scene which apparently appears in US TV edits, where Sam Loomis hears the decision as to what to do with Myers until he is 18. Upon discovering the decision of the court, Loomis objects stating it’s a “minimum security institution”. The decision was based on Myers convincing the doctors, except Loomis, the he is in a catatonic state, and was no risk.

Without the scene it never makes clear it was a minimum security institution.

 

Ah fair enough. Is the current running time that bad? Seems strange to cut something like that as in its current format the start of the film is a mess.

It’s a really weird cut. It provides context, and highlights how Loomis is the only one who really knows what’s going on, and how the views of the other professionals feed in to the ultimate reluctance of the authorities to be too worried.

There are also little things that are said (I can’t think off the to of my head) that make little sense, but just as a result of the lack of context.

Because it is a dreadful film. I really wish I could I unsee it!

Why are there no lights or security though or any official people present as they approach the gates?

Haha yeah the girl spills a fraction of butter on herself and takes her jumper and pants off

Not a plot hole but whats his obsession with Laurie?  You see his face at the end when he is attacking her and she pulls off his mask.  Never remember that before. Thought he was always faceless.  It was Martin O'Neill btw

Now, how he got the rest of the information about her whereabouts is another matter. She could have been adopted anywhere in the US.

I believe even the director admitted the poster was a mistake.

Yeah 20 years and he wasn’t moved or no inspection done on his room. The staff didn’t change in 20 years either. 

 

Did Max jump into the dumpster ?

Is Laurie Stroud Michael's sister and she was adopted by other people?  (Who just happened to live down the street?)

Only watched it recently and did a bit of research. The answer is....it;s not know, and left to ambiguity if he did or he didn't

Saying that, the ending I took was that none of it was real and it was all a drug addled dream for Noodles

Yep. The supposition was he was catatonic and incapable of movement. He was also to be tried for the murder when he turned 18, and might have got the chair.

So was she born after he was in the asylum?  Mot sure what age she is supposed to be.  She had to have been before he was taken away as they were driving and having sex so I am guessing they were 17 or 18. He was in prison 15 yrs.   Her dad was an estate agent and that's why she went to the house I thought?  She was hardly adopted and her new parents living down the road? Make little sense.  Also her father would have known she was the Myers baby and hardly would send her back to the house of her sisters murder just to do a frivolous task for him. 

I’ve only realised over time that Loomis was viewed as an unreasonable quack. Pleasence’s excellent acting job slightly camouflages this.

Don;t make sense to me guv.   Why was she put up for adoption?  For her protection from Michael almost a witness protection programme?  If so why let her move in jsut downt he street from her old house! Hardly hiding her away is it?!  Also of he wasn't viewed as a risk then why the need to give her up for adoption in the first place?

I think I read somewhere that John Sullivan used to sometimes write under an alias called John Carpenter as he didn't want the BBC knowing he was pitching his ideas to other tv/film companies.

The adoption was about the stigma of being associated with the Myers name and the killing. Easier to change the name, but ho hum. That might be the WPP aspect?

Why didn't the parents change their name?  Giving a baby up for adoption is a bit drastic no?  Could they not move to another town?

Also where is baby Laurie when the parents return home? She is not with them.  And what's Michael's reason for killing his sisters?

Myers reason for killing? Just look to Sam Loomis’ words. No conscience, no reason, not human etc. In terms of where is baby Laurie, she could be at another house. Or else, Myers mother may have been 8 months pregnant at the time.

Adoption may have been drastic. But what would it have done to the movie had they just moved away?

Could Myers not kill normal people though? What's his reason for going after his sister?

Where are you getting all this info from? The deleted scene?  There's nothing in the film that addresses these issues.

I can only hypothesise the pregnancy.

In terms of the obsession with his sisters that again is down to his personality that Loomis spoke of at great length over the films.

And he kills many other people throughout the film, including a mechanic just for the overalls.

The mechanic was killed in the first one.

He also tried to kill Loomis.

But you’ve seen the important ones.

Halloween II is borderline okay. And it squares up a few things. 3 is not relevant at all to the Michael Myers universe, and I believe was intended to take the franchise in a different direction . 4 was reasonably atmospheric but was in line with 1980 slasher fare. 5 and 6 were pointless. H20 was the best after 20 years of sequels, and Resurrection was again, pointless. 

He tried to attack yer wan in the car after Loomis irresponsibly leaves her alone in the car with escaped mental patients on the loose after telling her on the way how dangerous he is.

That’s right. My understanding was that he was being moved for the trial at aged 21 (so I think that makes him 21) which was referenced in the deleted scene. Loomis wanted the nurse to administer a sedative.

Yep! Apparently just covered in silver spray paint!

Pretty much what happened, supposedly first day of filming they decided Mike Myers needed a mask to make him scarier off the intern went and back he came back with the shatner one they painted it white and enlarged the eye sockets and hey presto

The worst movie plot-hole in cinema history belongs to Star Trek Generations. Malcolm McDowell wants to go to a paradise like place, and the only way to get there is through a moving rip in space.

The film says that you can't fly into the rip in a spaceship. So McDowell destroys whole solar systems in order to alter the rip's course, thus allowing him to enter the paradise while standing on a planet. 

However, how did McDowell enter the rip in one of the early scenes in the movie? He did so in a spaceship.

How did Captain Kirk enter the rip? He did so in a spaceship.

The only person in the entire film who doesn't fly into the rip in a spaceship is Patrick Stewart.

By the movie's own logic, all McDowell had to do was fly into the rip in a spaceship. They could have cut the film's running time to 30 seconds and avoided all the countless deaths.

They have specialists, Bladerunners, that use a machine to expose if an android is trying to masquerade as a human.

However, all the androids are made by a company and have complete I.D.s, including photos, that are available to the police.

So there's no need for Bladerunners. Regular cops could do the job just as easily.

The big twist in the film is that one of the crew is an android. He's there to ensure the Company get the alien for research purposes. And all his actions throughout the movie, from start to finish, reflect this.

However, if the Company already knows of the existence of the alien, then why don't they just send a proper scientific ship to the planet instead. Relying on a cargo vessel to bring back an alien is just careless.

Now if the Company didn't know about the alien, then what is the android doing on board the cargo vessel in the first place?

If the Company knows or not, the whole android part of the story makes little sense.

In the original script and screenplay it's explained that the crews science officer was replaced with Ash before they left during a pit stop on the way back to Earth from the outer rim.

The company knew about the Alien hence why they put an android who they programmed to ensure the Alien got on board the ship and then back.

The original plan was to freeze Kane (the guy who was impregnated) as soon he knew the Alien would survive the freezing process.

In terms of why they didn't send another ship, sending a cargo ship that passed by LV426 was less suspicious, as explained in the film it is duty of any commercial vessel to respond to any signal which could be a distress call 

Just pay the crew to go to the planet and collect an egg. If it's all illegal then pay them bonus hush money to keep it all secret. That's the logical thing to do. In space no one can hear you breaking the law.

There's no need for the subterfuge or killing anybody or risking the loss of the alien. The plan you describe would have probably involved having to kill the crew to prevent them from telling anyone about the alien. On a scale of lawlessness, bribery would be a far easier thing to pull off than murder. 

The story makes more sense as one where a crew accidentally stumbles upon an alien and everything goes wrong for them. This is what the audience is lead to believe for most of the film anyway. 

The part of the plot involving the Company is an unnecessary contrivance. It seems to exist purely to allow for the android twist.

The Ash character needn't have been an android and could have acted without instructions from the Company. He could have acted as he did for other reasons, such as wanting to help John Hurt when he was attacked, scientific curiosity, or even the the oldest motivation in the book: personal financial gain.

Or even if he was an android, he could have acted to protect the alien under some kind of protocol where his programming wouldn't allow him to let the other crew members kill the alien. 

In a movie about a rape victim giving birth, the android could have represented the most hardline of the pro-life faction of our own times. You could still even keep the scene where they bash his head in. 

In my opinion, that would have been more interesting than the big, bad, nefarious Company pulling all the strings from afar, which ultimately left a hole in the overall plot.

To make matters worse, the all knowing Company then forgot about the alien until Sigourney Weaver tells them about it in the sequel!

The crew watched the first take of the movie when it was in post production and spotted a glaring plot hole. Hans and his cronies come out of the back of the truck into the Nakotomi. No sign of the ambulance that was later reversed out by Theo for use for their escape.

Surprised TJ missed this. 

Was that the Die Hard Director's Cut with extra plot holes?

It's a little known fact that the director John McTiernan is a stage name John Sullivan used when writing in the US.  There used to be a US tv star called Ed Sullivan and he wanted to give himself a different surname to stand out more.

 

You may have a point on the other stuff but not sure this is really a plot hole. There's a 57 year gap between the events in Alien and Aliens. Given what happened to the ship in Alien (self-destruction with death or loss of all crew onboard) you would imagine the nefarious nature of the plan would have been very much buried by the Company and knowledge of it restricted to a few individuals.

 

In the events of Aliens, Ripley is essentially dealing with an Unfair Dismissal tribunal. It would be entirely plausible that they would have had no knowledge of a top secret plan from over half a century earlier.

The chronology looks something like this:

- The Company sends a cargo vessel in a half-arsed operation to get it

- The cargo vessel is lost

- The Company forgets about the alien for decades

- The Company accidentally terraforms the planet with the alien on it

- The Company is told of the alien by Sigourney Weaver

- The Company then spends 2 entire films being highly interested in the alien again.

So the Company moves from being highly interested in the alien, to complete indifference, back to highly interested once again.

And that's got to be a plot hole in my opinion.

If the first movie had been about a crew accidentally discovering an alien, then the plot would have had a logic and consistency about it that would have run right the way through all 3 of the original films.

- A cargo vessel accidentally finds an alien

 

This you see in many real life companies where they secretly do things are funded only for projects to fail and funding scrapped. 

It may well have been the case a lot of it was redacted from the the company records. Then then went into terraforming and someone in the background who was aware of the alien situation knew something was on lv426 but didn't know exactly where. Suggested lv426 as a potential area for the terraforming project.

I think it was mentioned in Aliens that they've been terraforming there for the last 20 years.

Now this could just have been another way for the company to search for the alien under the disguise of doing something else, they simply didn't know where to look until Ripley told them where.

In anyway...

Return of the Jedi.

The Rebels steal an Imperial shuttle and get their hands on a codeword, to get them past security. So they get to the planet / moon and everything works perfectly. Everyone thinks they are Imperials just going about their business.

Was watching this and immediately thought you'd have a field day with it 

I must check if John Sullivan is on the credits at the end of the film

Also when Harry trips over the trip wire at the top of the stairs and does a front flip, and then Marv has the spider left on his face (the greatest scream in cinematic history), the spider lands on Harry after Marv jumps up. But Harry is suddenly lying in the opposite direction.

What a mess! 

Ah no even in them days you had to have a ticket to get through security and to the gate. Unless some grumpy nitpicking aul lad on here wants to correct me.

Its close enough. Close enough

Lets get it right Young Doherty.  There's more plot holes than an episode of OFAH!

I just found out Kevin isn't even his real name.  His real name is Macaulay Culkin.

In real life that much stuff would be tearing into your hands.

When the contents fall out you can see it’s fake.

Also noticed the sledge /stairs / door non-alignment.

How did that work:

I never really watched it but Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.  Charlie seems to have an American accent but is supposed to be English or summink?  The scene where he buys a bar of chocolate in the shop looks like Germany

Are we really expected to believe this is a true story??

And how does Slugworth just happen to be wherever the tickets are found

Don't think it's meant to be a specific country

Denis Irwin wrote: Trap junior wrote: I never really watched it but Charley and the Chocolate Factory.  Charley seems to have an American accent but is supposed to be English or summink?  The scene where he buys a bar of chocolate in the shop looks like Germany Are we really expected to believe this is a true story?? Don't think it's meant to be a specific country

Then why is the schoolteacher and shopkeeper cockneys?

doherty wrote: He doesn't have an american accent. Is u hard of hearing innit

Yes he does! Hello! Hello McFly! Anybody home! Think McFly! Think!

Now make like a tree and get outta here

The McAllisters are really bad parents.  Imagine losing your 8 year old child twice in a year and making the exact same mistake.

Surprised Kevin wasn't taken off them by child services.

This sort of sh*t wouldn't happen to Liam Neeson

And then they cancel the f**king credit card 

He's a travelling salesman. He travels around the place pretty much all the time. 

He collared Charlie and Veruca Salt the same day the tickets were found though

In Rocky 3 Mickey suddenly tells Rocky all the lads he beat after beating Apollo were chumps.

How does Rocky, a heavyweight world champion, with top knowledge of boxing not know who is a top fighter and who isn't?  Every boxer must surely know who is their biggest threat?

Surely every boxing coach tells their fighter that, whether it’s true or not.

He said they weren’t set ups - just that they were hand picked.

They weren’t killing machines,

This would be standard procedure after you win the belt. Fight a few has-beens. 

Is Mickey training Anthony Joshua these days?

Deontay Wilder more like