00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Sinbad118 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

lets name some film inconsistencies

2,524 Views | 28 Replies

here are some:

in predators 2010, skinny Adrian brody beats the living shit of a super predator with a tiny hammer. but in the original movie Arnold Schwarzenegger hits a normal predator a giant tree branch and punches it but he just shrugs it off.

in Friday the 13th part 7, Jason looks like he has more of a normal person's head rather than a deformed one.

in crank 2, Statham goes through the whole movie getting electrocuted without a single scratch, except the end of the movie where he finally catches on fire because the plot demanded it.


BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-05 21:49:58


The vampire-woman-burning-in-the-sun scene is different in Underworld 1 and 3.

I thought that blood memories never lied.


A truly prophetic sig...

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-05 21:59:08


in american hustle, irving rosenthal and sydney prosser run a loan business that scams their clients out of a $5,000 fee for a $50,000 return that they never pay back. the selling point to draw the clients in is for sydney prosser to put on a british accent and claim to be "lady edith greensly" with royal banking connections. on the sidelines, they sell fake paintings to pass them off as authentic, using the same posh british accent trick. there are no further credentials for this lady edith greensly character, just an accent.

how the hell did they last so much as two weeks working in an impoverished area during the 70's without being shot full of holes and the business torched to the ground?


When ever you feel powerless, just remember this.

A single one of your pubes can shut down an entire restaurant. - Conal / MOTW: O Lucky Man!

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-06 01:23:56


Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-06 09:00:51


At 10/6/14 01:23 AM, CiviLies wrote: https://www.youtube.com/user/CinemaSins
Have fun

they don't have enough lap dances on their channel so fuck them


BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-06 11:16:50


I don't remember in which one it was but in an old Superman movie Superman reverses time to save Lois because he had saved a town instead in his first try, therefore Superman let hundreds or maybe thousands of innocent people die just to save Lois.


"Till one day, that lion gets up and tears the shit out of everybody."

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-06 12:13:15


At 10/5/14 10:08 PM, FurryGod wrote: I never understood the Alien series. The first Alien, their ship stops halfway to some foreign planet, then they find the Xenomorph on it. But then in Alien 2 people were already colonized on the planet?

1. There's no such thing as Alien 2. The sequels to Alien is Aliens.

2. It's explained right at the start that Ripley had been floating through space in stasis for 57 years after the events of the first film. The colony had been settled within that time period.

3. There is no 3. 2 answered your question and 1 allowed me to be a douche so my work here is done.


Happy with what you have to be happy with

you have to be happy with what you have

to be happy with you have to be happy with what you have

BBS Signature

In Stand by Me Ace would have definitely murdered Gordie, and all of those other cunts

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-06 17:13:17


There's certainly inconsistencies in Men In Black 3 and Donnie Darko; but I will have to get back to you on exactly what they are because they are overly complex; and more of a paradox


Are you not Entertained ?!?

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 15:55:19


At 10/6/14 03:14 PM, FurryGod wrote:
At 10/6/14 12:13 PM, Jercurpac wrote: 2. It's explained right at the start that Ripley had been floating through space in stasis for 57 years after the events of the first film. The colony had been settled within that time period.
That still doesn't make any sense.

Are you retarded?


Pretend not to care about anything, but be bothered by everything.

You may be fast on the roads but it's no use on the track.

ScaryPicnic made me do it.My letterboxd.

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 20:09:41


At 10/14/14 07:44 PM, FurryGod wrote: Are you mad m8?

I don't see how I could possibly be mad, you're making assumptions based on nothing.
So basically, you really are retarded.

lets name some film inconsistencies


Pretend not to care about anything, but be bothered by everything.

You may be fast on the roads but it's no use on the track.

ScaryPicnic made me do it.My letterboxd.

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 20:21:52


At 10/14/14 08:09 PM, Slint wrote:
At 10/14/14 07:44 PM, FurryGod wrote: Are you mad m8?
I don't see how I could possibly be mad, you're making assumptions based on nothing.
So basically, you really are retarded.

Fight over. Both of you.

Ok, something relevant to the topic. Shield didn't show up in Iron Man three. They were in both the other movies but when Tony takes on an actual terrorist the security agency is nowhere to be seen.


I have nothing against people who can use pot and lead a productive life. It's these sanctimonius hippies that make me wish I was a riot cop in the 60's

BBS Signature

At 10/6/14 03:14 PM, FurryGod wrote:
2. It's explained right at the start that Ripley had been floating through space in stasis for 57 years after the events of the first film. The colony had been settled within that time period.
That still doesn't make any sense.

The original ship in Alien 1, the Nostromo, was warping faster-than-light back to Earth after mining a distant planet. During FTL travel, crew members are kept in a state of deep sleep which reduces their metabolic processes, so that time essentially does not pass for them. They were awoken from their deep slumber halfway through their journey to respond to a signal originating from the planet with the Xenomorph.

After the first film ends, the Nostromo has been destroyed and Ridley is in this state of deep sleep. As the only survivor of the events of Film 1, no one has told Earth or Weyland-Yutani about the xenomorphs. Since she could not have told Earth about the events 57 years prior, the past 57 years have been spent colonizing known planets. She also has not aged, but the world around her has. And the progress of the human effort to colonize other habitable planets has continued in her absence. She didn't die, she slept for 57 years while Earth kept settling and mining other planets. Other planets were settled during the 57 years she was in hypersleep. Because she was asleep for 57 years, no one on Earth knew that the planet was a dangerous place. During her 57 years of deep sleep, people tried to settle the planet.

Ooga booga booga.


Just an 02er.

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 21:34:51


In Hollywood, film producers count numerous denominations despite not having made anything of value.


RIGHT-TILTING PENTAGON GANG

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 21:55:21


Easy target, but...

In Avatar, the English decide to hunt the natives for their resources.

Wait. Sorry. That was Pocahontas.

In Avatar, the humans decide to hunt the natives for their unobtainium.

For some reason, they decide to attack the Smurf (sorry, Navi) settlement because the area under their sacred tree is rich in unobtainium. Of course, they could have simply traveled to one of the nearby floating mountain ranges where massive veins of the element are enough to cause colossal chunks of land to rise above the ground. Actually, that would have really simplified the mining process because the deposits would be much easier to identify and mine...

In reality, everyone planning the mission was a disgruntled Legend of Zelda fan.

Hey, listen!

lets name some film inconsistencies

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 22:00:14


At 10/14/14 09:33 PM, PoundDotBlam wrote: Just google it.

I bet your real fun at parties


BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 22:04:01


At 10/14/14 10:00 PM, xXSp1cyN1njaXx wrote:
At 10/14/14 09:33 PM, PoundDotBlam wrote: Just google it.
I bet your real fun at parties

Yes. His real fun at parties.

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 22:22:55


At 10/14/14 09:55 PM, Bit wrote: In Avatar…unobtainium

This actually happens in solid resource mining. Companies lease or rent the exploration rights to small plots in an area and use computers to determine the shape and distribution of mineral resources in the area. They don't buy the rights to mind until they've found the plot with the core of the resources. There are many reasons for it, but basically it's less expensive to play with money above ground and hope yo buy the mining rights for the most concentrated deposits than it is to shell out mining rights for satellite deposits which would contain more slag which costs money to remove during processing and then dispose with. Also, it's explained during the film that they've had trouble making the unobtainium from smaller deposits worth mining. Especially when faced by the prospect of mining an enormous deposit of the stuff.

Think of it like this. Nobody goes into backyards in North America to harvest iron ore from granite. That iron can still be used to demonstrate principles of electromagnetism, but it's mixed in with a lot of other elements. Instead, profit-seekers probe around to find the highest concentration and maximize the efficiency.


Just an 02er.


At 10/14/14 08:40 PM, Profanity wrote: Because she was asleep for 57 years, no one on Earth knew that the planet was a dangerous place. During her 57 years of deep sleep, people tried to settle the planet.

I would argue that Weyland did know as the crew were ordered to investigate, and they did not care whether it was dangerous. Moreover, that is probably why families were sent to colonize there in the first place.

But perhaps that is just me looking too much into it, but how else would you explain them finding that planet again in the entire universe, and it's hard for me to believe that once Mother intercepted the transmission that it wasn't also sent to their employer. Ash corresponded with them from the very beginning.

There's a fine line between reasoning and making excuses for these writers, though lol.

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 23:07:43


At 10/14/14 10:45 PM, FurryGod wrote:
At 10/14/14 08:40 PM, Profanity wrote:
At 10/6/14 03:14 PM, FurryGod wrote:
Ooga booga booga.
Okay that kind of make sense, but the point I was trying to make is of all the planets out there it's kind of a coincidence they colonized that one in the previous film. It's just seemed too convenient.

I can't remember where I read the overall plot, but basically Weyland-Yutani pays poor people to fix their machines and settle planets while they're being terraformed. That's not the only planet which has been colonized, but it's also not the only planet which has been visited by the Engineers. The engineers have built infrastructure and taken over so many solar systems that their power is supposed to be frighteningly omnipotent. The entire literature has been standardized by James Cameron, it might be in book format.

Anyway, she was picked up not-too-far from the planet because she was in orbit in that solar system. She didn't have a ship powerful enough to leave.


Just an 02er.


At 10/14/14 11:07 PM, Profanity wrote: That's not the only planet which has been colonized, but it's also not the only planet which has been visited by the Engineers.

I prefer the name Space Jockey

And there's an inconsistency:
Didn't imagine the "Engineer" from Prometheus to look the way they did.

lets name some film inconsistencies

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-14 23:26:58


At 10/14/14 11:03 PM, Phonometrologist wrote: I would argue that Weyland did know as the crew were ordered to investigate, and they did not care whether it was dangerous. Moreover, that is probably why families were sent to colonize there in the first place.

I'm sure Weyland knew that there was something anomalous, but he didn't know anything from after Ash's treachery.

But perhaps that is just me looking too much into it, but how else would you explain them finding that planet again in the entire universe, and it's hard for me to believe that once Mother intercepted the transmission that it wasn't also sent to their employer. Ash corresponded with them from the very beginning.

I don't think it's you "looking too much into" anything. I think it's you not understanding basic astronomy.

The entire universe?? Do you realize how insulting to common sense that is?? Obviously they're not traveling farther than our local star cluster to find resources and planets to settle. They're not even leaving a sliver of our spiral arm of the Milky Way. It would take millions of years to go far enough to lose track of any specific star. That's like walking down the street to a bodega and then expecting to never find the same store ever again, because if you tried you're pretty sure you'd end up in Djibouti or Polynesia. Actually, it's like dropping your cell phone in a couch and expecting to find it in orbit around Neptune.

There's a fine line between reasoning and making excuses for these writers, though lol.

It's not a writer's job to hold your hand through the entire movie.


Just an 02er.


At 10/14/14 11:26 PM, Profanity wrote: The entire universe?? Do you realize how insulting to common sense that is?? Obviously they're not traveling farther than our local star cluster to find resources and planets to settle. They're not even leaving a sliver of our spiral arm of the Milky Way. It would take millions of years to go far enough to lose track of any specific star. That's like walking down the street to a bodega and then expecting to never find the same store ever again, because if you tried you're pretty sure you'd end up in Djibouti or Polynesia. Actually, it's like dropping your cell phone in a couch and expecting to find it in orbit around Neptune.

I admit that "entire" is a poor choice of wording but my point is in the vastness of their travels. You're assuming that they've been down this path before. You over-simplified your argument with that analogy of comparing it to a local store and even a couch. 39 light years from Earth? Really? It was mentioned that the Nostromo is "just short of Zeta II Reticuli, not even reached the outer rim yet" I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Astronomy, but mind you, we're talking about a hypothetical construct as if we even know for sure what it would be like tracking down the same planet that the Nostromo visited. To me it makes more sense that Weyland foreknew as opposed to it being purely coincidental as supposedly it has been 57 years while we find out that they have already been settled on that planet for quite some time. They found that planet pretty quickly.

It's not a writer's job to hold your hand through the entire movie.

lol As if that was even my point--straw man
We both come to the conclusion that this isn't so much an inconsistency that Weyland started to colonize the same planet that the Nostromo visited, but we differ in how we got there.

Thank you for this derision on such an inconsequential topic.

about to be derailed

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-15 14:32:03


filth with james mcavoy is a film of inconsistent quality that's for sure


*sigh*

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-10-15 15:24:11


When it's day time in a movie but it's night-time when you're watching it. Something fishy is going on there


BBS Signature

the fear 3, the pointman suppose to be 32 but looks like he's in his late 40's/early 50's

lets name some film inconsistencies


BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-11-05 15:22:33


In the 2005 Dukes of Hazzard movie there's the scene with the police road block.

Cooter pulls his tow truck up to the road block and lets down the ramp letting Bo jump over the road block. The issue is at the top of the ramp there's a clear wall on the ramp, making the jump impossible without massive damage to both the General Lee and the truck.

In the scene where he jumps the camera cuts to a wheel shot, showing the ramp. The ramp changes to an almost completely flat ramp, different to the actual truck from the prior scene.

After he lands the jump the trucks ramp returns to it's original state with the blocked off top.

I don't even like the movie it was just on TV a few days ago and I noticed that inconsistency and it bugged the shit out of me.


life can be real fuckin crazy

BBS Signature

Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-11-05 19:35:30


Response to lets name some film inconsistencies 2014-11-05 21:19:30


At 11/5/14 07:35 PM, TheGamechanger wrote: 1998 Godzilla...........
2014 Godzilla........
Thor..........
2012............
Dragonball Evolution.........
Titanic..........

these assholes don't have enough lap dances on their channel so don't mention them here


BBS Signature