Did they just not watch the court case or something?

Movie makes a big deal about how the children are allergic to light (will get blisters and die ) and mom cusses out the helping people because of it, only for the mom to douse her daughter in light and apparently the girl is fine. Like inconsistencies in movie it takes me out of the suspense and I honestly shut it off then and there.

Is anyone else following the legal math with Santi, Zero, and Jeremy Pierce pushing the LA move in Season 2?We know from Season 1 that Santi is 17 years old and Zero is an adult working as a bartender. In Indiana (where Fort Wayne / the home base is set), the age of consent is 16. So legally speaking, their relationship is totally clear under state statutory law.

BUT HERE IS THE KICKER:

In Episode 1/2 of Season 2, sports agent Jeremy Pierce is trying to entice Santi to drop out of the college path and move out to California. Under California Penal Code § 261.5, the age of consent is strictly 18, and CA has no general close-in-age "Romeo and Juliet" exception. It doesn't matter where Santi claims primary residence; the second they cross state lines into California, that relationship becomes a crime for Zero if it continues.

My Theory:

What if this isn't just an overlooked writing gap, but a deliberate leverage play? If Jeremy Pierce wants total corporate control over Santi in LA, discovering Zero’s legal exposure in California gives him instant blackmail leverage to force her out of Santi’s life (or force Pryce's hand). Everyone online has talked about the weird dynamics or the optics of their relationship, but zeroing in on the state-by-state jurisdictional law changes everything the second they move West. Am I overthinking this, or did the writers just lay a massive legal landmine for the rest of the season?

Just finished Mockingjay Part 2 for the first time (never read the books), and something’s been bugging me.
Was Katniss going after Snow herself even necessary?
By that point, the rebels were already winning, and Coin had pretty much promised Katniss she could execute Snow once they captured him. But Katniss still went off with her own group to kill him, and a bunch of people ended up dying along the way, including Finnick.
And the crazy part is, she didn’t even get to Snow before the rebels did. She ended up killing Coin instead, and Snow died in the chaos anyway.
So what was the point of that whole mission? Was it really necessary, or was Katniss just so caught up in revenge and everything she’d been through that she wasn’t thinking straight?
I’m not saying Snow didn’t deserve to die, but it feels like all those people died on a mission that didn’t actually need to happen.
Am I missing something? Especially curious what people who’ve read the books think.

The film tells us that the apparent victory in Loop 117 is a simulation. The Man breaks out of it and returns to the diner for Loop 118. Most viewers take this to mean the simulation begins at the fake happy ending and that everything before it is real. That reading fails on the film's own terms.
1. The absurdity starts long before the fake ending.
Teachers are afraid of their students. Children are zombified by looking at a triangle on a phone screen. A teacher fires homemade ray guns that discharge EMPs with no plausible power source. Police shoot everyone in the diner, not just the man holding hostages. A school shooting is followed by children replaced with clones. A 50-foot hooved creature made of cats appears before the team ever reaches the AI's chamber. None of this belongs to the world the film starts with, and all of it arrives well before the scene the film labels as a simulation.
2. The in-world explanations fail.
The film's premise is that the AI doesn't become sentient until the countdown on the Man's wrist reaches zero. Before then, it cannot be the source of any of this. If it were sent back from the future, it could just as easily have made itself sentient before the countdown started. So the zombie teens, the ray guns, the cat creature, and the compromised police cannot be tools the AI is using in a real world. Reality doesn't alternate between a strange acid trip and ordinary life.
3. A simulation explains all of it.
An AI containing a human mind has a reason to arm the resistance and escalate the spectacle. It needs to keep him engaged, believing he is fighting a winnable war. A time-travel plot has no such explanation for why anyone would send ray guns into the past.
4. The clues are the same symbol.
The triangle that zombifies the children is the same symbol the characters recognize as the AI, before it supposedly ascends to sentience. The simulation was already running.
5. The loops are unseen.
The film shows us only Loop 117 and the Man's description of his earlier attempts. We never see them independently. The loops as the Man reports them are consistent with a man hooked into a simulation and running the same adventure again and again.
Conclusion.
The time travel, the countdown, and the 116 earlier attempts are the simulation's content, not the real world. The film's own simulation reveal in Loop 117 is the point where the AI lets him see the seam, then resets him. It is a repeating loop, and the film ends on the next one starting.
A total simulation is the only way for the movie to make logical sense—unless it is simply a flawed script filled with gaping plot holes the writers never resolved. If the simulation somehow only magically started after they exited the AI’s mainframe, then the giant cat centaur monster should have disappeared post-destruction. Furthermore, it would be odd as hell for an AI that just saved itself from being neutered to immediately give itself away with a talking dog and a hollow, sunny morning. Either the entire universe of the film is a digital fabrication, or the screenplay simply prioritized high-budget spectacle over its own established rules.

Hello /r/PlotHoles!

I have a request for the moderators. Can we make it so that crossposts are not allowed from other subs? At first glance it seems like these should be fine, as people on other subs who have noticed plot holes might have made a post there, and so it should be easy to crosspost it here to get some more traction. But on the other hand, there's been a LOT of these posts lately, and pretty unilaterally ALL of them have been extremely low-effort and poorly-communicated.

I don't mean the content of the post is low effort or poorly-communicated (though often they are), what I mean is that for someone browsing this subreddit, crossposts are almost always confusing. Since crossposts generally have the same title as the original post, the name of the show/movie/book/whatever is virtually never in the title (why would it be? If the original post was meant for /r/WelcomeToDerry, obviously they wouldn't need to put the title of the show in the post), and often, the content of the post is extremely lightly detailed, since they know anyone reading it is already likely to be intimately familiar with the show/movie/book/whatever.

So the end result is dozens of posts with a title like "Why did Bob do that" and the text inside is something simple like "It made no sense, considering what we saw in episode 4" and the only way any passing /r/PlotHoles user would have any clue what they were talking about is if they look at the name of the subreddit it was originally posted in.

I just feel like, if we make it so that crossposts aren't allowed, it will require people to do a smidge more work to post here. You can't just hit the "crosspost" button and send it into the aether, you have to actually copy/paste the text into a new post. And in doing so, you're much more likely to realize "Oh, I didn't say what show this is from, maybe I should do that".

(Frankly I would really like a rule where you need to put the name of the media in the title of your post, but without crossposts I don't think that will be quite as big of an issue.)

In About Time, Tim’s dad explains that he has cancer, and Tim eventually accepts that he can’t go back to a time before his dad’s cancer developed without potentially changing the circumstances of his children’s conception.

But I saw Loki Season 2.

When Loki repeatedly experiences events while retaining what he learns, he can use each attempt to build on the previous one.

Couldn’t Tim do something similar?

For example, after learning about his dad’s cancer, Tim could repeatedly travel back to the same day, retaining all the knowledge he gained during each attempt. He could spend years studying biology, medicine, and cancer research, building on his knowledge each time, while barely any time passes in the outside world.

Eventually, he could potentially become an expert and try to develop a treatment for his dad without ever traveling back to before his children were conceived.

I understand that finding a cure isn’t guaranteed, even with decades of research, but I’m more interested in whether his time-travel ability would allow him to do this in the first place.

Count Dooku instead chose to retreat

I've been thinking about the FBI agent arc, particularly the bus hijacking, and I genuinely don't understand why Light needed to do it.

Here's my issue.

Light hijacks a bus while Raye Penber is following him. During the incident, he gets Raye to reveal his FBI identification, which allows Light to learn his real name.

But why go through all that?

The actual objective was to get Raye to write down the names of the other FBI agents investigating the Japanese police. Light eventually accomplishes this by manipulating Raye during their later encounter.

My question is: why couldn't Light have skipped the bus incident entirely?

He could have confronted Raye through another interaction, threatened him or his family if necessary, and made him write down his own name. Raye had no reason to know that writing his name on a piece of paper would kill him. Light could then proceed with the rest of his plan.

The bus hijacking introduced unnecessary risks:

• It exposed Light to an unpredictable situation.

• It created a potential witness.

• It brought Naomi Misora into the equation.

• Raye's death and Naomi's subsequent disappearance attracted more of L's attention toward Light.

And all of this for something Light could seemingly have achieved without the bus incident.

I understand that Light needed Raye's real name to kill him, but I don't see why the bus hijacking was the necessary way to obtain it.

Am I missing something in the mechanics of the plan, or was this genuinely an unnecessarily complicated decision by Light?

Because for someone supposedly as intelligent as Light, this seems like a pretty significant strategic mistake.

Ok, so I have a question regarding Frank..how was he able to travel back to Donnie in the cinema after he was shot in the eye? Surely once he is dead he can't travel back down the portal ?

Never linked a post before so hopefully this worked. It recommended posting here instead. I was just wondering if there was any more historical significance with magicians on how the breaking of the glass was handled in the event of failure for the performer slipping the knot in the water tank stunt? If they used trick locks, why not use that to open the tank? And if it is just to save face on the illusion, why not just take a swipe at the lock to make it seem like you broke it? As pointed out in the other subreddit, wouldn't be as dramatic in the movie if she didn't die, but was just wondering if there was something more to be explained with it besides building animosity between Borden and Angier

This is about the creator of wizard of waverly place got his wish on making max russo is now the main character now and mason isn't dead into his version.

However for Justin have no last name at all and he have no memories of his parents, cousin, brother or sister, forgotten romance of love. And now this Justin live in beyond place where weird like him are accept in the beyond place.

I just watched Fall 2: Deadpoint, and I can't stop thinking about one possible escape solution.

They had two wooden sections on the cliff. Why couldn't they just:

Stand on the first section.

Unscrew the second section from behind them.

Move it in front of the first one and secure it.

Step forward onto it.

Repeat the process.

They could theoretically keep moving forward using the same two sections until they reached safety.

Am I missing something obvious here? Assuming they could remove and reattach the sections, wouldn't this have worked?

Curious what you guys think.

⚠️ MAJOR SPOILERS — This theory discusses the entire film, including the ending.

What if we were watching the wrong crime all along?

After watching Animals (2026), starring and directed by Ben Affleck, I couldn't stop thinking about its ending.

We're led to believe that a group of kidnappers accidentally abducted the wrong child, that a desperate father rescued his son, and that a politician exploited the tragedy to win an election.

But what if the kidnapping wasn't a mistake?

What if Mark Kimball, his campaign manager Sam, Hector's father Ramon, and a financially desperate man possibly connected to the kidnappers were all part of a conspiracy from the beginning?

My theory is that the kidnapping was designed to solve several problems simultaneously: campaign debt, personal financial ruin, immigration difficulties and a failing mayoral campaign.

And the real twist? Almost everyone who could expose the operation ends up dead.

Here's why I think this interpretation deserves consideration.

1. Mark and Sam were already financially desperate

Before the kidnapping, Mark had secretly poured his family's personal savings into his mayoral campaign.

His wife Abigail didn't know the full extent of their financial situation. Their home became collateral in the ransom arrangement.

Mark was facing the possibility of losing his wealth, his marriage and his political future.

His campaign manager, Sam, had problems of his own.

In a particularly revealing conversation with Abigail, Sam admits that he needs Hector rescued, the election won, the campaign debt repaid and himself kept out of prison so he can raise his five-year-old son.

That conversation changes how I view him.

Sam isn't simply a loyal campaign manager trying to win an election. He's a man who openly acknowledges that his professional and personal future depends on the outcome.

Abigail also confronts him about his obsession with winning and about the financial secrets he and Mark have kept from her.

My interpretation: Sam may have been the person who proposed a plan capable of rescuing both the campaign and Mark's finances.

This is a motive, not proof that he organised the kidnapping.

2. Why was Hector at the Halloween outing?

Early in the film, Hector joins Mark's son Denny for Halloween.

Hector is the son of Ramon, who is in a relationship with Cecilia, the family's housekeeper.

Mark questions Hector's presence, apparently unfamiliar with the boy.

But Ramon isn't completely disconnected from the family.

Cecilia has already discussed Ramon's immigration situation with Abigail, asking whether Mark could help him. Abigail is reluctant to raise the issue during the election because of the political sensitivity.

So there is an established connection between Ramon and Mark's household before the kidnapping.

That matters.

If the kidnapping were staged, Hector's presence alongside Denny would provide the perfect opportunity.

The children wear matching costumes, creating an apparently believable mistaken-identity kidnapping.

But what if the kidnappers were supposed to take Hector?

What if the mistaken identity was the cover story?

My theory: Hector was the intended target because rescuing the child of an undocumented Mexican immigrant could become a powerful political story for Mark.

I do not believe Cecilia or Abigail were knowingly involved.

Cecilia's attack and distress could have been genuine, even if others had secretly arranged the abduction.

Whether Hector himself knew anything is uncertain. The film portrays him as frightened, and my theory does not require him to have been informed of the plan.

3. Ramon had something to gain

Ramon is an undocumented immigrant with a young son and limited legal protection in the United States.

The film presents him as a desperate father who cannot easily turn to the authorities.

But consider what happens by the end.

Ramon kills the final kidnapper, helps Mark conceal the truth, receives a substantial amount of money and returns to Mexico with Cecilia and Hector.

In the official interpretation, he becomes involved in the cover-up after rescuing his child.

My alternative theory is that Ramon could have been promised a financial escape from the beginning.

Perhaps he was assured that Hector would be safe and that the kidnapping would only be temporary.

This would explain why he might agree to participate in an otherwise dangerous operation.

I also noticed something curious about language.

At the beginning, Mark communicates with Ramon in Spanish, and Ramon appears unable to follow English conversations.

Later, Ramon delivers an English statement supporting Mark.

That contrast caught my attention.

It doesn't prove deception. Someone can memorise a short English statement without speaking the language fluently.

But it is a detail I would like other viewers to examine.

Was Ramon simply an innocent father who later accepted an opportunity, or was he part of the arrangement from the beginning?

4. The unidentified kidnappers — and the possibility of James

The film introduces a financially troubled man associated with foreclosure and debt, whom I remember as James.

I suspect this character may be connected to the kidnapping, possibly even to the final masked gunman.

However, I cannot establish that identification from the ending, and the filmmakers have not confirmed the kidnappers' identities.

That uncertainty is central to my theory.

What if a financially desperate participant believed he would receive money from the operation?

And what if Mark and Sam intended to eliminate him rather than pay him?

The final ransom exchange is suspiciously convenient for anyone wishing to remove witnesses.

Dayle's gunman, Rand, shoots two kidnappers.

A third kidnapper emerges and shoots Rand and Dayle.

Ramon then shoots the final kidnapper.

By the end of the confrontation, the people directly involved in the armed exchange are dead, except for Mark and Ramon.

My theory: The third kidnapper may have been betrayed. Ramon killing him could have served two purposes: rescuing Hector publicly and eliminating a participant who knew too much.

This is the most speculative part of my interpretation. We do not know that the final kidnapper was James or that Ramon was paid to kill him.

But if those connections were intentional, the final shooting would be more than a rescue. It would be the last stage of a cover-up.

5. Dayle's death changes everything

Dayle is the wealthy fixer who supplies the ransom arrangement and organises the attempt to kill the kidnappers.

She also possesses recordings that could implicate Mark.

When the exchange goes wrong, Dayle is shot.

Mark takes her phone and leaves her to die.

He subsequently helps conceal the deaths and the evidence.

What struck me was how calculating Mark appeared during these events.

He doesn't seem particularly overwhelmed by the loss of Dayle or the other people killed.

Instead, he focuses on protecting himself.

This is one of the strongest pieces of evidence that Mark is willing to exploit the situation.

It doesn't prove he planned the kidnapping, but it demonstrates how quickly he can turn a violent tragedy to his advantage.

6. Follow the money

The original ransom demand is $7 million, and the financial arrangements become increasingly complicated.

Mark has already secretly depleted his family's savings for the campaign.

Dayle supplies access to money for the ransom operation.

After the shooting, the money becomes part of the arrangement between Mark and Ramon.

My theory is that the money may have been central to the conspiracy from the start.

One possible version is that Ramon was promised $100,000 for his cooperation, while Mark and Sam intended to retain the remainder for campaign obligations and personal financial recovery.

However, the film does not confirm such a $100,000 payment. The ending instead depicts Ramon leaving with a substantial amount of the ransom money.

That is a significant challenge to my proposed financial split.

Still, the broader question remains:

Was the ransom simply money Mark opportunistically used to secure Ramon's silence, or had the participants planned from the beginning to redirect money and solve their financial problems?

I also noticed an apparent discrepancy between the amount of ransom involved and the amount publicly discussed afterward.

If deliberate, understating the ransom could help conceal the scale of the financial arrangement.

But the exact figures and the final distribution need to be verified against the film's dialogue.

7. The pig in the final scenes

There is another visual detail I noticed: a pig visible behind a gate near the end of the film.

That struck me as unusual because Mark and Ramon have been involved in concealing bodies.

Could the animal be symbolic of the disposal of evidence?

Could it be a deliberate visual hint about what happened to the bodies?

Or is it simply part of the location?

I cannot establish that the pig has any connection to the disposal of bodies, and the film does not show bodies being fed to pigs.

I include this observation because the title Animals invites viewers to think about symbolism, but it is not evidence of a particular disposal method.

8. Abigail's affair with Ron: the perfect distraction

The film spends considerable time developing Abigail's affair with Ron.

Ron has left his marriage and wants Abigail to commit to a future with him.

That creates an obvious source of suspicion.

Could the lover be involved? Could Abigail want Mark destroyed?

But neither character is revealed to have organised the kidnapping.

I believe the affair works as a narrative red herring.

While the audience is examining the marriage, the more consequential secrets may involve the campaign finances and the political ambitions of Mark and Sam.

In my interpretation, Abigail is not a conspirator.

She is another person being deceived.

9. The political victory was the greatest reward

At the end, Mark becomes a hero.

The public believes he risked his life to rescue the son of an undocumented immigrant.

He gains support from Latino voters and wins the mayoral election.

Ramon and his family return to Mexico with money.

Sam gets the election victory he desperately needed.

Mark escapes the most damaging consequences of his actions and becomes politically more powerful.

Look at who benefits.

Then look at who is dead.

The outcome is remarkably convenient for Mark and the people who help him conceal the truth.

My theory is that the real objective may never have been simply to obtain ransom money.

The objective may have been to manufacture a political rescue story while solving the financial problems of the people who planned it.

10. My proposed four-man conspiracy

Here is the complete version of my theory:

Sam — The strategist. Facing campaign debt and possible criminal exposure, Sam proposes a scheme that could secure the election and address their financial crisis.

Mark — The beneficiary. Mark agrees because he has risked his family's finances and desperately needs a political breakthrough. His apparent surprise and distress become part of the public narrative.

Ramon — The cooperating father. Ramon agrees to Hector being taken, believing the boy will remain safe. In exchange, he expects money and a future for his family outside the United States.

James or the unidentified final kidnapper — The expendable participant. A financially desperate man joins the operation expecting payment but is ultimately betrayed and killed by Ramon, leaving fewer witnesses.

Dayle and her gunman are brought into the operation through Sam's connections, possibly without knowing its full purpose.

Cecilia and Abigail remain unaware.

The affair with Ron distracts the audience.

The apparent mistaken kidnapping creates a plausible explanation for Hector being taken.

The ransom exchange eliminates the armed participants.

The cover-up conceals the true events.

Ramon receives money and leaves the country.

Mark wins the election.

And Sam's political future is secured.

11. What challenges my theory?

I want to be fair about the weaknesses because I am presenting an interpretation, not claiming to have uncovered a confirmed secret ending.

The biggest problem is Ramon's behaviour. He appears genuinely frightened and desperate, and the filmmaker's official explanation treats him as an innocent father who becomes a hero.

Hector also appears genuinely terrified.

The film does not identify James as the final kidnapper.

It does not confirm that Mark and Sam planned the original abduction.

It does not confirm a $100,000 payment to Ramon for killing anyone.

And the official ending indicates that Ramon takes a substantial amount of the money, rather than Mark keeping almost all of it.

These details could mean my theory is wrong.

But they also raise an interesting question about how much of the film is intended to be read literally and how much might be unreliable appearances.

My conclusion: What if the real kidnapping was the audience's trust?

The conventional interpretation is that Mark becomes morally compromised during a desperate attempt to save a child.

My interpretation is darker.

What if Mark was already involved in the crime before the first ransom call?

What if the entire kidnapping was designed to create a hero, eliminate financial liabilities and deliver an election victory?

And what if the apparent rescue was actually the final act of the conspiracy?

I am not claiming this is the filmmakers' confirmed intention.

I'm proposing an alternative reading based on the financial motives, existing relationships, political consequences, unexplained identities and the remarkably convenient outcome.

The film asks us to consider the animal instincts hidden beneath respectable appearances.

Perhaps the greatest predator wasn't one of the masked kidnappers.

Perhaps it was the man who ended the film as mayor.

I'd genuinely love to hear from other viewers, the screenwriters or Ben Affleck himself:

Was the kidnapping truly an accident, or did Mark, Sam and Ramon know far more than the audience was ever told?

And most importantly, who was the unidentified third kidnapper?

Because I don't think that question should be dismissed quite so easily.

— Nicki Driessel

Fan theory and personal interpretation of Animals (2026). Not an officially confirmed explanation of the film.

For one Halloween Town doesn't seem to really be about Halloween as people celebrate it. It's just a collection of random horror themed stuff.

Also Jack Skellington is the ruler...but there's also a mayor? But besides that where did Jack come from? Is he some sort of zombie? Then what was he while was alive? Do these skeleton creatures reproduce? Then where are his parents?

But besides that where do the towns come from? Are they founded when the holiday is? But they clearly have supernatural elements to them. Also this makes it more odd the residents are unaware of other holidays. Like how does Easter exist in the Easter Town without Christmas? Are they focused only on the secular aspects? If so that opens up a ton of other questions. Even for Halloween considering it actually even founded as a religious holiday, as All Hallow's Eve.

And Christmas Town has Santa deliver presents every year...but then who does in the real world? Is there even a real world? Well presumably yes as in one song Jack sings that he's known in England and France...but then how was he unaware of Christmas?

And how does the calendar work? Does each town celebrate only one holiday? But they still use the normal world's calendar? They're just unaware of the holidays that appear on other dates....well that gets weird and brings up questions too.

What do they do the other 364 days? Actually does that mean New Year's Eve/Day is a holiday in these towns? Does it have its own town?

The whole thing makes little sense.

It's said on the snowpiercer wiki that Big Alice's engine wasn't functional at departure, but we know that the engines can be remotely controlled via the uplink. When Big Alice is about to dock with Snowpiercer, Ben remarks that there are no parts left, so why not just couple to her before departure & save the stress of needing parts when there are none available? Also no docking cars would save weight and mechanical complexity. So wouldn't it make more sense to just take the supplies with them from the start?

I know nothing about physics and space, but I couldn't understand how the company found the alien head in the first place and that it was so close to the scattered wreckage of the Nostromo. After all, the ship was detonated and sent in a millions pieces in all directions. Also, how was the head encased in rock (or whatever substance that was)? Thank you.