Flaws you can't unsee in great stories and how to fix them.

[TheRedChamber]

(Spoilers for the famous bits of a thirty year old movie that 'everyone' has already seen. You have been warned)

Last night I watched Terminator 2 for the first time in decades. It's a great great film and does so much almost flawlessly. But, if like me you haven't seen it in a while, think back to all those iconic moments especially the ones in the end - the T-1000 frozen and shattering in liquid-nitrogen and then falling and writhing in a furnace of molten metal.


Two questions...
Do you remember how the T-1000 got covered in the nitrogen?
Answer - It literally just hijacked a tanker of nitrogen because that was the vehicle that was there then crashed it.
Do you remember how the heroes ended up in the factory with molten metal?
Answer - They were being chased there and that's where they happened to end up.

Now T-2 is very much mimicking the end of T-1 where the original Terminator has their truck turn into a fireball and then later is crushed with industrial machinery and a lot of the ending works. But 'tanker containing liquid nitrogen' is a hell of a step up from 'truck' and 'factory with molten metal' is a hell of a step up from 'factory with crushing machinery'

Neither of the 'two best shots' at ending the T-1000 are in any ways the result of active planning by any of our heroes. Hell, even after being faced with these two coincidences, do the heroes say 'Hmm, could liquid nitrogen/molten metal be a good way to end a Terminator?'

In fact, despite the Arnie Terminator being a wealth of information on all topics from the future throughout the movie, nobody actually asks at any point in the film 'Is there a good way to kill this machine?' A lot is made of Arnie picking up a chain gun from Sarah Connor stash in the desert, but it's pretty clear at this point that any kind of gun is going to be largely ineffective.

No, don't worry, I'm not going to start ranting about how this revelation has killed my childhood, or writing angry letters to James Cameroon demanding his resignation.

It is however, one of those little wrinkles in an otherwise great movie that I'm just not going to be able to unsee now.

(For another example, the next time you watch GoldenEye, which is a top 5 Bond movie, count how many times 007 gets captured by an adversary. It's...constant)

And, now that I'm writing as one of my main hobbies, when I see this stuff, I want to fix it.

Surely something like this is something that can be waved away with a single line (or maybe one line for the nitrogen, one line for the factory). And actually, it's way harder than it looks. The movie exists for the most part in chase mode, and any character saying 'Hey, a liquid nitrogen tanker - hold up, fellas, I've got an idea' changes the dynamic in the audiences from the heroes being on the back-foot to going on the offensive. Chekoving either extreme heat or extreme cold as a way to take it down isn't particularly helpful - the audience will understand the idea when they see it and mentioning it earlier will just spoil things. Also the dilemma at the midpoint of the movie is 'stay away from the T-1000' verses 'alter the future so Skynet doesn't happen' - adding in a 'proactively frag the T-1000' is a branch too far here.

But this also is kind of a issue with the movie. In denouement Terminator 1, Michael Biehn sacrifices himself by getting close enough to the T-800 to lodge a pipe bomb between it's hips. Obviously that doesn't 100% work and we still have a desperate crawl through machinery till things are finally done, but it does mark the 'this ends now' moment in the movie. With T2, that moment never really comes - accepting that shooting a Terminator isn't trying to kill it, just slow it down - the heroes are always just in escape mode and Arnie essentially just gets luck enough to blow the T-1000 back into the lava.

Remember, if you've not seen it for a while, this is all one long scene following them blowing up the Skynet project at the labs. Which is another slight issue if you're thinking you can slow things down and give the heroes a chance to plan out their nitrogen/molten schemes. One thing with the Terminator movies is that once you get far enough away from the Terminator, you're essentially home free - especially as Sarah has spent years planning escape routes. The script-writer has to fill in a believable reason why the Terminator crosses paths with or finds its target again, and the movie has already used up two of them (John needs to rescue his mother from the asylum, and heroes attempt to destroy Skynet before it is created) And by the end of the movie none of the three main heroes is green enough to make a simple mistake giving away their location.

So, the conclusion is...this is one of those mistakes that just isn't fixable without making sweeping changes - and overall you do want the final two scenes in there. So, just stick them in and hope it takes your audience 34 years to realize your minor inelegance.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is why James Cameron gets to make as many Avatar movies as he damn well pleases and I don't. I can't help but feel there's a lesson for writers buried somewhere here.

So, what can't you unsee in your favourite movies and how would you try to fix it?

 

[SimonDoom]

I read your post twice, and I don't quite follow. There are convenient coincidences, but to me they're well explained enough that the movie holds together. I don't see anything fatal. T2 ends with both terminators destroyed, and some hope that they're destroyed once and for all and the future will be OK, but it's uncertain, and I think that's the way it should be (not just to set up another movie).

Sure, they just so happen at the end of the movie to end up in a place with molten metal that can destroy the T-1000, and that's pretty much a 1 in a thousand chance, but it doesn't really bother me. The role of chance encounters and happenings, along with fate, are well-established themes in the movie by that point, so it works for me.

I have some issues with one of my favorite movies--Godfather 2. What exactly did Fredo do that set up the hit on Michael? Fredo is an idiot much of the time, but it strains credulity that he would be so stupid as to give away his acquaintance with Johnny Ola the way he does in front of Michael--the one thing that he knows he must not do. Plus, when the Rosato brothers try to kill Pentangeli, why do they say to him that Michael Corleone gives his regards? What's the point? Presumably they actually meant to kill him, so it would make no sense for them to place blame on Michael to the man they meant to kill. That made no sense to me.

 

[SimonDoom]

While I don't have a problem with T2, I do have a problem with another Cameron movie I liked a lot: Aliens. The marines show up on the planet, and they're totally unprepared to deal with the aliens. If the reason is, presumably, that the Company wanted to obtain an alien specimen and wasn't really interested in eradicating the aliens, then why send marines in the first place? Why not send a crew of private mercenaries aware of what their mission was and prepared to do what was necessary to get a specimen? The problem reflects a bias--and I think a defect--in Cameron's work. In Cameron's movies, everybody in a position of authority is a stooge. And maybe that's OK as a message, but it doesn't make sense in light of what the Company's mission is. Also, the marines are just way too stupid. Either you send a top-notch crack team that wouldn't have made the obviously dumb mistakes they made, if the goal is to find and destroy the aliens, or you send a completely different sort of mission that is prepared to capture a specimen. In this case, they did neither.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I read your post twice, and I don't quite follow. There are convenient coincidences, but to me they're well explained enough that the movie holds together. I don't see anything fatal. T2 ends with both terminators destroyed, and some hope that they're destroyed once and for all and the future will be OK, but it's uncertain, and I think that's the way it should be (not just to set up another movie).

Sure, they just so happen at the end of the movie to end up in a place with molten metal that can destroy the T-1000, and that's pretty much a 1 in a thousand chance, but it doesn't really bother me. The role of chance encounters and happenings, along with fate, are well-established themes in the movie by that point, so it works for me.

My argument is that there are a very limited number of things that could conceivably kill the T-1000 - gigawatts of electricity perhaps, a vat of acid, a nuclear explosion. But the scriptwriter hands the characters two completely deus ex machina 'Kill the Unkillable machine' free cards in quick succession - these cards are entirely unearned. For hijacking a liquid-nitrogen tanker, go and sit at the end of your road and count vehicles until you see a liquid nitrogen tankers - odds have to be well over 1000. Now, you could write in that Cybernide Systems is using liquid nitrogen to cool superconductors and have the T-1000 pick up the tanker when they destroy the lab, but they don't - there's a helicopter chase first. Similarly if you are being chased randomly, what are the odds that the place you end up in has molten metal unless you're specifically looking for something like that?

I'll avoid talking about the time-travel element of the movie because it's almost impossible to make time-travel work and all the Terminator movies seem to contradict each other anyway. You can use 'everything that happened was fated to happen' in a timetravel movie and Terminator 1 does lean into this a bit. But T2 has absolutely no 'This was fated to end here' meta-narrative - indeed the final narrative is all about 'we're now in uncharted territory regarding the future'

 

[Britva415]

Do you remember how the T-1000 got covered in the nitrogen?
Answer - It literally just hijacked a tanker of nitrogen because that was the vehicle that was there then crashed it.

The best live-action stunt I've ever seen in any movie ever was the T800 going over the top of the sideways-rolling cab of the truck while it jackknifed and overturned.

 

[Britva415]

I would argue that T2's "deus ex machina" story-saving elements aren't flaws at all, they are there to round out the dystopian theme by conveying that only getting stupidly lucky can save us.

 

[TheRedChamber]

While I don't have a problem with T2, I do have a problem with another Cameron movie I liked a lot: Aliens. The marines show up on the planet, and they're totally unprepared to deal with the aliens. If the reason is, presumably, that the Company wanted to obtain an alien specimen and wasn't really interested in eradicating the aliens, then why send marines in the first place? Why not send a crew of private mercenaries aware of what their mission was and prepared to do what was necessary to get a specimen? The problem reflects a bias--and I think a defect--in Cameron's work. In Cameron's movies, everybody in a position of authority is a stooge. And maybe that's OK as a message, but it doesn't make sense in light of what the Company's mission is. Also, the marines are just way too stupid. Either you send a top-notch crack team that wouldn't have made the obviously dumb mistakes they made, if the goal is to find and destroy the aliens, or you send a completely different sort of mission that is prepared to capture a specimen. In this case, they did neither.

Funnily enough that's another movie I've seen recently - I'm currently on a binge of 'catching up with beloved long-running franchises and their less beloved endless sequels' - someone ask me about Robocop next.

I think there are holes between Alien and Aliens. Why don't the colonists who go to settle the planet pick up the same distress call that Ripley's ship did? Someone in the company knew about the ship so why did nothing happen in the 75 years she was floating in space? I'm not sure if we know enough about how that future works to say if the marines should have been sent. The Company is pretty powerful, but if 200+ citizens are in danger, isn't there a requirement for the government to step in. It's a bit vague how much the Company actually believes in the aliens and how much is Burke's own personal get rich scheme.

One of the critical moments of the film does rely a bit too much on the trope of 'Our hero spots the obvious flaw that the trained experts should also have spotted' (not being able to shoot bullets in the lair under the nuclear reactor) and then have them not withdraw immediately to rethink things. That's kind of baked into the script though I'd say (much is made of it being Gorman's first mission) although it could be executed more subtly.

 

[SimonDoom]

I would argue that T2's "deus ex machina" story-saving elements aren't flaws at all, they are there to round out the dystopian theme by conveying that only getting stupidly lucky can save us.

I agree with this. An underlying theme of the movies is that judgment day is going to happen regardless, so in a way it doesn't matter too much how they get there.

As far as the liquid nitrogen truck -- it isn't really a deus ex machina because it DOESN'T destroy T-1000. It's just a temporary setback, and it underscores how difficult it is to kill. I agree the convenience of just happening to end up at a place with molten metal is improbable, but it still doesn't bother me, given all that's happened so far in the movie.

 

[SimonDoom]

Funnily enough that's another movie I've seen recently - I'm currently on a binge of 'catching up with beloved long-running franchises and their less beloved endless sequels' - someone ask me about Robocop next.

I think there are holes between Alien and Aliens. Why don't the colonists who go to settle the planet pick up the same distress call that Ripley's ship did? Someone in the company knew about the ship so why did nothing happen in the 75 years she was floating in space? I'm not sure if we know enough about how that future works to say if the marines should have been sent. The Company is pretty powerful, but if 200+ citizens are in danger, isn't there a requirement for the government to step in. It's a bit vague how much the Company actually believes in the aliens and how much is Burke's own personal get rich scheme.

One of the critical moments of the film does rely a bit too much on the trope of 'Our hero spots the obvious flaw that the trained experts should also have spotted' (not being able to shoot bullets in the lair under the nuclear reactor) and then have them not withdraw immediately to rethink things. That's kind of baked into the script though I'd say (much is made of it being Gorman's first mission) although it could be executed more subtly.

I think it gets back to Cameron's repeated bias that authorities, and especially military and police authorities, and rich people, are stupid. This was true in Terminator, to some degree, and very much in T2, Aliens, Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar. Their stupidity is useful as a plot device, but if you think about it then it seems like a contrived and not wholly satisfying device.

This isn't as much a problem in the original Alien film. In that movie it seemed like the crew was doing a reasonably good job trying to come to grips with and deal with a foe they didn't understand. They were making things up on the fly and their options were limited. Whereas, in the other films the stupidity of the authorities was an essential plot device to move things forward.

 

[TheRedChamber]

As far as the liquid nitrogen truck -- it isn't really a deus ex machina because it DOESN'T destroy T-1000. It's just a temporary setback, and it underscores how difficult it is to kill. I agree the convenience of just happening to end up at a place with molten metal is improbable, but it still doesn't bother me, given all that's happened so far in the movie.

I'd agree with you if the movie landed the actual kill properly - as a result of the character's actual intelligent or brave actions. Generally, you're allowed one big coincidence per story. Ultimately, if you're not bothered by something, I can insist that you should be bothered by it. I'd argue that in a movie, especially in an action movie, characters get a certain amount of 'luck' and a certain amount of leeway for things happening in an exciting and survivable order (e.g. earlier the movie establishes strong reasons for why Sarah would be trying to escape the asylum that particular evening, why John and Arnie would be trying to rescue her and why the T-1000 would also be looking there - the narrative convenience of exactly when they all turn up is accepted by the audience) but they also have to show 'pluck' at the end. I would argue that T2 gets the pluck/luck balance wrong at least for me on this viewing.

I think it gets back to Cameron's repeated bias that authorities, and especially military and police authorities, and rich people, are stupid. This was true in Terminator, to some degree, and very much in T2, Aliens, Abyss, Titanic, and Avatar. Their stupidity is useful as a plot device, but if you think about it then it seems like a contrived and not wholly satisfying device.

This isn't as much a problem in the original Alien film. In that movie it seemed like the crew was doing a reasonably good job trying to come to grips with and deal with a foe they didn't understand. They were making things up on the fly and their options were limited. Whereas, in the other films the stupidity of the authorities was an essential plot device to move things forward.

Writers/Directors definitely have tropes and, yeah, I guess that is one of Cameron's (along with Strong Female Leads) So, I guess my original question how would you fix the film to have non-stupid marines/authority?

 

[Bamagan]

Neither of the 'two best shots' at ending the T-1000 are in any ways the result of active planning by any of our heroes. Hell, even after being faced with these two coincidences, do the heroes say 'Hmm, could liquid nitrogen/molten metal be a good way to end a Terminator?'

In fact, despite the Arnie Terminator being a wealth of information on all topics from the future throughout the movie, nobody actually asks at any point in the film 'Is there a good way to kill this machine?' A lot is made of Arnie picking up a chain gun from Sarah Connor stash in the desert, but it's pretty clear at this point that any kind of gun is going to be largely ineffective.

A few points:
The T-1000 was identified as a prototype in the movie's dialogue, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that the T-800 only has an approximate idea of what might destroy it. John is more interested in saving his mother (twice), so his focus is never really on destroying their pursuer, and Sarah also has a different priority. The movie takes place over only about two days, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah at least would have started making plans to destroy it eventually, if things had continued along those lines.
The liquid nitrogen truck was dumb luck, yes, but it's possible that the T-800 was following a plan during the chase to lead them to an industrial area, and such trucks are a bit more common where such materials are produced or used. He was driving initially, and told John which off-ramp to take, so he might have been intending to reach the foundry or steel mill or whatever it was, recognizing it as a potential hazard for their pursuer*. Perhaps I'm being overly forgiving, but it would have been rather out of character for the T-800 to volunteer that kind of information ahead of time.

*Also, forgot to mention, he does try to lead them into one of the hottest parts of the building, until Sarah tells him they can't take the heat either. So he may well have been acting on a plan for destroying the T-1000 at least by that point, if not earlier.

 

[TheRedChamber]

A few points:
The T-1000 was identified as a prototype in the movie's dialogue, so it's not much of a stretch to assume that the T-800 only has an approximate idea of what might destroy it. John is more interested in saving his mother (twice), so his focus is never really on destroying their pursuer, and Sarah also has a different priority. The movie takes place over only about two days, so I wouldn't be surprised if Sarah at least would have started making plans to destroy it eventually, if things had continued along those lines.
The liquid nitrogen truck was dumb luck, yes, but it's possible that the T-800 was following a plan during the chase to lead them to an industrial area, and such trucks are a bit more common where such materials are produced or used. He was driving initially, and told John which off-ramp to take, so he might have been intending to reach the foundry or steel mill or whatever it was, recognizing it as a potential hazard for their pursuer*. Perhaps I'm being overly forgiving, but it would have been rather out of character for the T-800 to volunteer that kind of information ahead of time.

*Also, forgot to mention, he does try to lead them into one of the hottest parts of the building, until Sarah tells him they can't take the heat either. So he may well have been acting on a plan for destroying the T-1000 at least by that point, if not earlier.

Not unreasonable points, and I think with a line or two the move could get to the point where that theory is more than just conjecture but not fore-fronted enough that it spoils the flow of the movie. I read him telling John which off-ramp to take as being more a case that they were in a slower, lighter car and getting of the flyover with it's straight lines was their best strategy at that point.

 

[Lathanar1]

Does it not bother anyone that the T800 can travel in time because it's encased in organic material while the T1000 is a metal that mimics other things? Or why didn't John stick a gun that could kill a terminator inside a deer and send the body back to help in the first movie?

 

[TheRedChamber]

Does it not bother anyone that the T800 can travel in time because it's encased in organic material while the T1000 is a metal that mimics other things? Or why didn't John stick a gun that could kill a terminator inside a deer and send the body back to help in the first movie?

Yes, but only at an intellectual level. For sure, if I was writing fan-fiction the inconsistent rules would be annoying and watching them back-to-back in a week these thing really stand out, but...

It's the sort of thing that makes narrative sense - bring a Terminator-buster weapon from the future would trivialize the mission and arriving naked from the future is a fun bit of story. So it's easy enough to overlook.

I was probably more in 'what can I learn as a writer from the one of the best action movies of all time' mode last night than I was in a 'hey lets enjoy some popcorn and fun flick' which might be why it stood out - ultimately though it ended for me with 'wait, the heroes didn't earn any of that!' (while scoring 10/10 for a fine attempt at averting the apocalypse)

 

[Britva415]

the T800 can travel in time because it's encased in organic material

I don't think that that's what enables it to travel through time, if that's what you mean.

while the T1000 is a metal that mimics other things

They both mimicked humans, that was their purpose: They're both infiltrator bots. That's why living flesh, and that's why liquid metal. I guess Skynet saw the T1000 as an upgrade, maybe a whole new model.

And they both traveled through time.

 

[33RPMVinylPants]

I've seen it said that coincidences that get your protagonist into trouble are OK, but coincidences that get your protagonist out of trouble are cheap.

I always think of the scene in Pulp Fiction where Bruce Willis is driving along minding his own business when Ving Rhames just happens to cross the street in front of him, they see each other, and now his whole day is fucked.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is me with Endgame. Don't get me wrong, every movie has moments where fiction has to fiction and you have to deal with it (Infinity War...um, why couldn't Strange use the Time Stone the exact way Thanos did at the end? Why didn't they sever his hand the way they did the giant guy with the axe early on? Why put the only person who knew where the soul stone was right in front of Thanos?) But in End game it was to the nth degree. The movie was seen as far better than it was due to the hype a few feel good moments and being the end of a long storyline. But in reality?

The turned Thor and The Hulk into absolute jokes, shoehorned Captain Marvel into a movie she had no history or connection with, the time travel device is the laziest writing next to it was only a dream, and has created the reason the last few years worth of movies suck because they now make up continuity as they go (and BTW there is no way in hell that two Steve Rogers didn't exist at the same time the way they ended his arc). Killing Black Widow over Hawkeye was nonsense and a direct result of Scar Jo suing Disney for not paying her fairly. The "charge of the women" was such a contrived pandering look how woke we are moment.

The 'snap' created more stupidity than the time travel, five years, billions come back and its no problem? Give me a fucking break. Lazy, lazy, lazy.

The movie was at best meh. But the fix was easy. Just the original Avengers (and that was who was left after the snap and leave out Captain marvel) hunting down Thanos and having another knock down drag out with him. On that note Thanos, despite not having the stones was somehow stronger than Thanos with the stones for....reasons.

Nope, the harder look you take at that movie, the more it fails. Last fail now being RDJ coming back in some way to Be Doom and shitting all over his sacrifice. I'll call that movie ass right now. Nothing but member berries and desperation.

Now, if we all want to send ourselves into a coma

Describe everything wrong with Rings of Power and try to fix that.

 

[THBGato]

Surely the worst (cf Big Bang Theory) is Indiana Jones, the first one, where the outcome of the movie would have been exactly the same had Indy never existed.

 

[lovecraft68]

Surely the worst (cf Big Band Theory) is Indiana Jones, the first one, where the outcome of the movie would have been exactly the same had Indy never existed.

I had to think for a minute, but yeah, you're right. He wasn't able to prevent the Nazis from getting the ark, so yeah, him being there was basically to be the audiences' eyes to see what happened.

Now the most recent one? That made people wish he'd never existed.

 

[SimonDoom]

Surely the worst (cf Big Band Theory) is Indiana Jones, the first one, where the outcome of the movie would have been exactly the same had Indy never existed.

Curse you for this. I've always loved that movie, and I'm never going to be able to think of it the same way!

One objection to your point would be this: It's at least possible that the Ark might have been misused by somebody in the future for bad results if Indy had not been there to result in it being hidden away in safekeeping.

 

[Bamagan]

Surely the worst (cf Big Band Theory) is Indiana Jones, the first one, where the outcome of the movie would have been exactly the same had Indy never existed.

I think there would have been at least a couple of significant differences. If the 'outcome' is limited to just the bit about the Nazis melting themselves with the ark, okay, yes, that plot element was probably inevitable. But the paths to and from that fixed point would likely have been altered.
The Nazis would probably have killed Marion, although there's a chance she'd have sold them the disc and they'd leave her alone.
The Nazis and/or Belloq might not have taken the ark to a remote island to do their fatal experiment if not for the pressure of Indy's pursuit and the implication that their plans were not as secret as they'd hoped. Perhaps they'd have 'set it off' in Cairo, or Berlin, or some seaport or rail hub in between Egypt and Germany, possibly resulting in many more lost lives and little chance that the artifact could be quietly hidden afterwards. Maybe the general public could be misled with a fabricated story about chemical weapons or something, but we could expect 'top men' from various countries would be at least aware of the lies, if not the full facts of the truth they concealed. World War II might even had started a little earlier.
For me, if there's a real flaw in the execution of the movie (but unrelated to the long submarine ride), it's the common trope of 'mystical adventures in the real world' that introduce fantastic elements but somehow only a handful of people ever learn about them. I'm guilty of that one myself, though, so I can't complain too much. It's a convenient excuse to not have to do the heavy lifting of trying to predict all the implications of how society would react if, say, vampires were indisputably proven to exist.

 

[TheLobster]

Perhaps they'd have 'set it off' in Cairo, or Berlin, or some seaport or rail hub in between Egypt and Germany, possibly resulting in many more lost lives and little chance that the artifact could be quietly hidden afterwards. (…) World War II might even had started a little earlier.

If they brought it to Berlin and presented as potential Wunderwaffe to the German chancellor, WWII might not have started at all.

By which I mean that it’s quite possible Indy has saved Hitler’s life; that would be some flaw indeed.

 

[jehoram]

I have some issues with one of my favorite movies--Godfather 2. What exactly did Fredo do that set up the hit on Michael? Fredo is an idiot much of the time, but it strains credulity that he would be so stupid as to give away his acquaintance with Johnny Ola the way he does in front of Michael--the one thing that he knows he must not do. Plus, when the Rosato brothers try to kill Pentangeli, why do they say to him that Michael Corleone gives his regards? What's the point? Presumably they actually meant to kill him, so it would make no sense for them to place blame on Michael to the man they meant to kill. That made no sense to me.

I don't want to even get started on the plot holes and contrivances of Terminator, Alien, or the Marvel movies, but I do want to try to clear up Simon's questions about "Godfather 2".

1. Fredo was the one who got the would-be assassins past the security of the compound. Remember that Freddie had been their contact person and, when the assassination failed, they ran to Fredo's house, and it was Freddie who killed them when he'd realized that he couldn't let them live to talk.

2. Fredo was shit-faced drunk at the time he made his mistake in not trying to hide his acquaintance with Ola. You'll notice that he's drinking in just about every scene. John Cazale's performance as a drunken Freddy was so understated that many people didn't catch it. It also accounts for his confusion when Michael is trying to get him out of Havana, I think.

3. It wasn't the Rosato brothers themselves who made the hit. The Rosato brothers told their hitmen that they were acting as a favor for Michael, and to let Pentangeli die with that false assumption. Why they wanted their hitmen to believe that lie wasn't cleared up, although it could be that, if they were made to talk, their confessions would incriminate Michael. The result, of course, was that Pentangeli lived, and became convinced that the Corleone family had turned against him... a lucky break for the Rosatos.

 

[jehoram]

If they brought it to Berlin and presented as potential Wunderwaffe to the German chancellor, WWII might not have started at all.

By which I mean that it’s quite possible Indy has saved Hitler’s life; that would be some flaw indeed.

The ark's destructive powers were aimed only at the bad guys, and spared Indy and Marion because they were good guys (looking or not looking at the ark had nothing to do with their salvation). If it was opened in Berlin, Yahweh would have done in only the baddies and not the general populace. Of course, the Old Testament has ample examples of Yahweh wreaking destruction on the good and bad alike, so maybe I'm not accounting for everything.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't want to even get started on the plot holes and contrivances of Terminator, Alien, or the Marvel movies, but I do want to try to clear up Simon's questions about "Godfather 2".

1. Fredo was the one who got the would-be assassins past the security of the compound. Remember that Freddie had been their contact person and, when the assassination failed, they ran to Fredo's house, and it was Freddie who killed them when he'd realized that he couldn't let them live to talk.

2. Fredo was shit-faced drunk at the time he made his mistake in not trying to hide his acquaintance with Ola. You'll notice that he's drinking in just about every scene. John Cazale's performance as a drunken Freddy was so understated that many people didn't catch it. It also accounts for his confusion when Michael is trying to get him out of Havana, I think.

3. It wasn't the Rosato brothers themselves who made the hit. The Rosato brothers told their hitmen that they were acting as a favor for Michael, and to let Pentangeli die with that false assumption. Why they wanted their hitmen to believe that lie wasn't cleared up, although it could be that, if they were made to talk, their confessions would incriminate Michael. The result, of course, was that Pentangeli lived, and became convinced that the Corleone family had turned against him... a lucky break for the Rosatos.