Hi! I host a video series called Plot Hole or Not Hole, in which I interview storytellers about perceived plot holes in their own work. The goal is to go straight to the source, find out whether the person who scripted the plot thinks the alleged hole actually qualifies as one, and see how they explain it. Naturally, I've spent a lot of time on this subreddit, and I've seen many mentions of potential plot holes in 2001's Ocean's Eleven, which is turning 25 this year and getting a prequel and another sequel. So I thought some folks here might enjoy my chat with screenwriter Ted Griffin about the movie's infamous "duffel bags filled with flyers" plot twist, as well as some other commonly cited supposed plot holes in Ocean's Eleven and other famous movies. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Or suggestions for films, shows, or other media to cover next!

In the film Annie attempts to get in her car. It was locked. She goes and gets the keys from inside the house, and when she goes back she opens the car door without unlocking it. Michael is in the back seat and Annie meets her demise. So that begs the question did Michael unlock the car? If so how? Is it just a simple continuity problem? Then why include the shot of her opening the unlocked car door?

Just saw this movie for the first time and, first of all, what a great movie. I guessed the twist at the end just minutes before it was revealed and felt so good about it. But that's not what I'm here to talk about. There is one "mistake" that I expected someone to have commented on, but I didn't find any comments.

In the night scene of the shooting where all of the hungarian mob is killed, the moment that Keaton is surrounded by them, he talks to them and in the subtitles it says "speaking hungarian" since, you know, they're the hungarian mob.

But the thing is what they're talking is not Hungarian, they're speaking Spanish. I'm Spanish and I watched the movie in Enlish with subtitles, so that's why I noticed. I don't know if in theatres when it came out it said "speaking hungarian", but in netflix it sure does and that's not hugarian at all.

https://youtu.be/c5mSxgfe9mw

If you're Spanish or speak it, you can clearly hear the dialogue:

Mobster: ¿Qué haces aquí?

Keaton: Nada

Mobster: Por aquí no se puede pasar

Keaton: ¿No se puede pasar por aquí?

Translated

Mobster: What are you doing here?

Keaton: Nothing

Mobster: You can't pass through here / You can't be here (first is the most literal translation, second is the one that sounds more natural in that situation)

Keaton: Can't pass through here? / Can't be here?

Nothing really big, but it's a small detail that I found funny and wanted to share.

A couple things that still don’t add up for me.

1. Won’t they / didn’t everyone wake up on the plane once the sedative wore off?
a. This has to be true because they all woke up on the plane synchronized, there is no way Cobb and Saito killed themselves in limbo at the exact same time as everyone else was ascending through all the kicks to level 1.
b. If true, why were the stakes so high for timing everything perfectly with perfectly aligned kicks throughout all the levels in order to wake up?

2. Is the overarching risk just that dying in this dream = limbo and that’s risky because in limbo it’s near impossible to remember/realize you’re dreaming, but all you have to do to get out of limbo is kill yourself?
a. Why didn’t they just tell Saito that so he could just kill himself as soon as he got to limbo? (Cobb and Ariadna obviously knew they were in limbo for a good while before the kick.)

Why couldn’t they just kill themselves in limbo and wake up on the plane like Cobb and Saito?

Why couldn’t they all just wait till the sedative wore off to wake up?

I’ve been rewatching *Inception*, and I think there is a possibility that we’ve been looking at the movie’s central objective from the wrong angle.
The movie tells us that Cobb’s mission is to perform an inception on Robert Fischer.
But what if Fischer isn’t the ultimate target?
What if **the entire Fischer operation is a means for Cobb to perform an inception on Saito?**
Not “Saito secretly wanted to help Cobb.”
Not “the whole movie is a dream.”
Something much simpler:
**Cobb needs to get back to the United States. Saito is powerful enough to make that happen. Cobb therefore needs Saito to develop the idea that helping Cobb is something he genuinely wants to do.**
And the entire Fischer operation may be the mechanism Cobb uses to make that happen.

**1. We already know Cobb is capable of inception**

Before Fischer, we have the clearest example of a successful inception in the entire movie:
**Mal.**
Cobb and Mal were trapped in limbo. Cobb eventually implanted an idea into Mal’s mind:
**“This world isn’t real.”**
The crucial part is that Mal eventually came to believe that the idea was her own.
She didn’t walk around thinking:
“Cobb told me we’re dreaming.”
The idea became part of her own belief system.
And the consequence is enormous: even after returning to reality, Mal remains convinced that reality itself is another dream.
Eventually, she kills herself because she believes she will wake up somewhere else.
That’s an inception.
And importantly, **we see the result.**
We see the idea.
We see how it changes Mal.
And we see the consequence.
This becomes extremely important when we compare Mal with Fischer.

**2. Cobb’s real problem is not Fischer**

Cobb’s real problem throughout the movie is incredibly simple:
**He cannot go home.**
He’s wanted in the United States because of Mal’s death.
He can’t see his children.
And this is what motivates essentially everything he does.
Then he meets Saito.
And Saito is not just rich.
He’s extremely powerful and influential.
Saito tells Cobb that if Cobb completes the job, **he can make Cobb’s legal problems disappear.**
That is the thing Cobb wants more than anything.
So let’s look at the situation from Cobb’s perspective:
I need to go home.

I cannot go home.

I meet one of the most powerful people in the world.

He needs something from me.

He can potentially solve my problem.
That is an enormous opportunity.

**3. What if Cobb’s “failed” inception of Saito is actually the beginning?**

At the beginning of the movie, Cobb and Arthur are attempting extraction on Saito.
Saito discovers that he’s dreaming.
The operation fails.
But something extremely important happens:
**Saito learns about inception.**
Cobb explains that extraction isn’t what Saito thinks it is.
And later, Saito asks Cobb to perform something much more difficult:
**Inception.**
He wants Robert Fischer to dissolve his father’s empire.
This is where my theory starts.
What if Cobb’s objective during the first operation wasn’t necessarily to successfully extract information from Saito?
What if Cobb wanted Saito to become interested in the concept of inception?
Because Saito is exactly the kind of person Cobb needs.
Cobb doesn’t need to convince Saito:
“Please save me.”
He needs Saito to reach that conclusion himself.
And what better way to do that than to make Saito believe that **the Fischer operation is his own objective?**

**4. Fischer may be the bait**

The official story is:
**Saito wants Fischer to destroy his father’s empire.**
So Cobb’s team builds an elaborate inception.
They construct multiple dream levels.
They manipulate Fischer’s relationship with his father.
They create the emotional revelation involving the pinwheel.
They convince Fischer that his father wanted him to become his own man.
And apparently, it works.
But here’s the problem:
**We never actually see what Fischer does with the idea after waking up.**
We see the idea being planted.
We see Fischer experience the emotional revelation.
But we never see:
Fischer return to the real world and act on it;
Fischer dissolve the company;
Fischer change his business strategy;
Saito verify that the objective was accomplished;
or any concrete consequence of Fischer’s supposed inception.
The movie simply moves on.
That is a very strange omission when the entire plot supposedly depends on Fischer’s decision.

**5. Compare that with Saito**

Now look at Saito.
With Saito, we get a complete narrative loop.
Cobb makes a deal with him.
Saito enters the dream.
Saito is wounded.
Saito eventually ends up in limbo.
Cobb goes after him.
Cobb finds him.
Cobb reminds him of their agreement.
Saito remembers.
They return.
And then we see the consequence:
**Saito makes the phone call.**
Cobb gets through customs.
Cobb goes home.
Cobb sees his children.
The promise is fulfilled.
So there is a fascinating asymmetry:
**Fischer:**
We see the inception being performed, but not its ultimate consequence.
**Saito:**
We see the entire process and, most importantly, we see the consequence.
Why?
Because maybe Fischer isn’t the most important target.

**6. The most important rule of inception**

Cobb repeatedly explains the same fundamental principle:
You cannot simply tell someone an idea.
If you want to perform a true inception, the idea has to feel like it came from the target themselves.
That’s why Fischer’s inception is so elaborate.
They don’t simply tell Fischer:
“Your father wanted you to destroy his empire.”
They construct an entire emotional experience designed to make Fischer reach that conclusion himself.
But here’s where I think the Saito theory becomes interesting.
What does Cobb ultimately want Saito to think?
Not:
“Cobb wants me to help him.”
But:
**“I made a promise to Cobb, and I need to honor it.”**
That’s exactly the kind of idea that can become internalized.
Cobb doesn’t have to force Saito to help him.
He only needs Saito to believe that **keeping the promise is his own decision.**

**7. And the limbo scene may be the final stage**

This is perhaps the strongest part of the theory.
Saito and Cobb eventually meet in limbo.
Saito has become extremely old.
He has forgotten almost everything.
Cobb comes to him and reminds him of their agreement.
This is not just exposition.
It is the final moment in which Cobb reconstructs Saito’s motivation.
Saito remembers.
He remembers Cobb.
He remembers the agreement.
And then they leave limbo together.
After that, Saito fulfills the agreement.
If Cobb’s objective was simply to perform inception on Fischer, why does the movie spend so much time giving us a definitive resolution to **Saito’s** story?
Because perhaps Saito’s story is actually the other inception.

**8. The really interesting part: Saito doesn’t need a totem**

Another detail caught my attention.
We are taught that totems are incredibly important.
Arthur has his loaded die.
Ariadne has her bishop.
The spinning top belongs to Mal.
But Saito?
**We never get a personal totem for Saito.**
We never see Saito explaining his own totem.
We never see him relying on one to distinguish reality from dreams.
And yet Saito becomes one of the most important characters in the entire dream structure.
This doesn’t prove anything by itself.
But symbolically, it’s interesting.
Saito’s reality isn’t anchored by a physical object.
His reality is increasingly anchored by **his relationship with Cobb and the promise between them.**
By the end, Cobb is almost functioning as Saito’s “anchor.”
Cobb tells him who he is.
Cobb reminds him what happened.
Cobb reminds him why he is there.
And Saito accepts it.

**9. The title becomes much more interesting**

If this theory is correct, the movie contains two different inceptions.
**The obvious inception:**
**Cobb → Fischer**
Idea:
“My father wanted me to become my own man.”
Objective:
Break up Fischer’s father’s empire.

**The hidden inception:**
**Cobb → Saito**
Idea:
“I have to honor my agreement with Cobb.”
Objective:
Help Cobb return to the United States.
And suddenly the entire structure becomes much more interesting.
The movie tells us:
**“Fischer is the target.”**
But perhaps Fischer is only the target of the **visible** inception.
Saito is the target of the **hidden** one.

**10. And Cobb has a perfect reason to hide it**

If Cobb wanted to incept Saito directly, he couldn’t tell Saito:
“I’m going to manipulate you into helping me.”
That would defeat the entire purpose.
So Cobb needs a legitimate reason for Saito to participate in an enormous dream operation.
And Fischer provides exactly that.
Saito believes:
“I’m hiring Cobb to change Fischer.”
Cobb knows:
“I need Saito to change his own mind about what he wants.”
The Fischer operation therefore becomes the perfect cover.
Everyone is focused on Fischer.
The entire team is focused on Fischer.
The audience is focused on Fischer.
And Saito himself is focused on Fischer.
Meanwhile, Cobb’s actual objective could be sitting right in front of everyone:
**Saito.**

**11. There’s another fascinating parallel with Mal**

Cobb’s first known inception creates an idea that ultimately destroys Mal.
His second possible inception creates an idea that ultimately saves Cobb.
Mal:
“This reality isn’t real.”
Saito:
“I must honor my promise.”
Both ideas become powerful enough to determine their future actions.
And both are ultimately implanted through **experience**, rather than simple verbal instruction.
That would create an extremely elegant character arc for Cobb.
His first inception destroys his life.
His second inception gives him his life back.

**12. The biggest objection**

Obviously, there is a major problem with this theory:
**Saito already has a perfectly legitimate reason to want Fischer’s empire dismantled.**
The movie explicitly establishes that Fischer Morrow threatens Saito’s company and potentially global energy dominance.
So Cobb doesn’t need to invent the Fischer mission.
Saito genuinely wants it.
That means the theory cannot simply be:
“Fischer was fake and Saito never cared about him.”
That’s too weak.
A much stronger version is:
**Saito genuinely wants Fischer’s empire dismantled, but Cobb uses that genuine motivation as the vehicle through which he can influence Saito.**
Both things can be true.
Saito genuinely wants Fischer changed.
And Cobb genuinely wants Saito to help him.
The Fischer mission can therefore be **real and useful while simultaneously serving another purpose.**

**13. And Nolan has actually said something that makes this interpretation even more interesting**

Christopher Nolan has explicitly discussed the similarity between the Fischer inception and filmmaking itself.
In a Wired interview, Nolan explained that the team has to use symbols to construct an emotional narrative for Fischer, and compared the pinwheel to the use of symbols in cinema. He also said that *Inception* is, in many ways, a film about itself.
That’s important because the movie is fundamentally about **making someone experience a story in such a way that they arrive at an idea themselves.**
That’s exactly what Cobb does.
And if the movie is doing the same thing to the audience, then the possibility that **we are being deliberately focused on the wrong target** becomes even more appropriate.

**14. What about Fischer?**

This theory does NOT require Fischer’s inception to have failed.
In fact, I think the strongest version of the theory assumes that it worked.
Fischer genuinely experiences the revelation.
He genuinely believes his father’s final message was about becoming his own man.
The inception probably succeeded.
But the movie doesn’t need to show us the consequences because **that isn’t where Cobb’s story ends.**
Fischer’s story ends when the idea is implanted.
Cobb’s story ends when he gets home.
And Saito’s story ends when he fulfills the promise.
That’s why the movie gives us a full resolution for Saito but not Fischer.

**15. The final sequence becomes the real proof**

At the end, Cobb doesn’t ask Saito:
“Did you do what you promised?”
He simply wakes up.
And Saito’s promise has apparently been fulfilled.
Cobb passes through immigration.
His legal problems are gone.
He gets home.
This is the only major objective in the movie where we are shown the **complete cause-and-effect chain**.
And that’s why I think Saito deserves much more attention when discussing the meaning of *Inception*.
The movie may not actually be asking:
**“Did Cobb successfully incept Fischer?”**
It may also be asking:
**“Did Cobb successfully incept Saito?”**
And unlike Fischer, **we actually get to see the answer.**

**16. My final interpretation**

I’m not claiming Nolan secretly confirmed this theory.
He hasn’t.
And there are obvious counterarguments.
But I think the theory deserves consideration because it doesn’t require us to ignore the movie’s established rules.
It simply changes the hierarchy of the objectives.
**On the surface:**
**Saito → hires Cobb → Cobb incepts Fischer → Fischer changes his mind.**
**Underneath:**
**Cobb → needs Saito → creates the Fischer operation → Saito experiences the entire journey → Saito internalizes his obligation to Cobb → Saito fulfills the promise → Cobb goes home.**
So perhaps the most important question of *Inception* isn’t:
**“Was Fischer successfully incepted?”**
Maybe it’s:
**“Who was Cobb really trying to incept?”**
And if the answer is **Saito**, then the title of the movie takes on an entirely different meaning.
The Fischer inception is the story we’re watching.
**The Saito inception might be the story actually happening underneath it.**
And the final phone call may be the moment when we finally realize that Cobb’s real inception worked.

Ok so in the movie Project Almanac, at the end David goes and destroys the Time Machine that either he created from the future or the one from the past that his Dad made. Which I’m assuming he destroyed the one from the past that his Dad made and that’s why he obviously ceased to exist at the end of the movie after he destroyed the Time Machine. My question is at the end when David and his sister is in the attic they find 2 cameras instead of one; the original and the one that future David left behind. Ok so the first time that David went into the attic with his sister there was only one camera up there. That camera showed that David saw himself at his own 7 year old birthday party. He was there to destroy the Time Machine; the same thing he did that was shown at the end of the movie. But why was there only one camera up in the attic at the begging on the movie and not two up in the attic like there was at the end of the movie. Please stay with me now. Basically David already destroyed the machine before because the first camera shows that he was at his own birthday party as a kid to destroy the machine, so wouldn’t he have brought the other camera with him to document what he was going to do like he did at the end of the movie. Because everything that happened thru out the movie was supposed to happen that’s why he had to destroy the machine in the past. So that means he would’ve brought the extra camera with him the first time like he did at the end of the movie. So shouldn’t there have been 2 cameras they should have found at the beginning of the movie like they did at the end of the movie?

Ok I just realized he probably didn’t have the camera with him when he went back in time to destroy the time machine the first time. Because if he did they would’ve found 2 cameras at the beginning of the movie like they did at the end. And I’m only saying that because I guess the timeline just keeps on changing drastically. Because the whole movie was about how he saw himself at his own party and then that spiraled. Then at the end we see that the second camera they found in the attic showed them everything that happened with the David that ceased to exist. The first time they found the camera there was only one camera and they only saw a small sec of him on video. The second time around when they found both cameras it was totally different and it showed them everything and more that they did. If he did bring the camera with him the first time around that he went to destroy the Time Machine then at the beginning we would’ve seen both cameras like how it was at the end and that would’ve been a whole different movie. So I guess I answered my own question but I’m going to still leave this post here lmao

But there are still potholes in the movie that still confuse me but it’s whatever.

Sorry but when he destroyed it the first time around it should still be the same every other time he destroys it and there should be only one camera they find in the attic or two. Because everything that happens in the movie has happened before and was supposed to happen. So there should always be only one camera or always two cameras that the find in the attic. Isn’t that how time past,present and future works?

But please provide me with your own opinions and intellect because as you can see I’ll probably need it. This post was a word vommit lmao

Not too long ago, I finished a pre-teen urban fantasy book series called "Seawalkers" by Katja Brandis (heavily reccomend for those who like magical highschool settings and sea animals), and despite genuinely enjoying the series and being generally content with the way it wrapped up, there is still one question left open that kinda rubs me the wrong way, even though it probably wasn't meant to be weird.

In the books, there is a background character named Linus, who is one of the main character's classmates. Everyone at the school has a second (sea)animal form, and Linus almost always appears in his second form of a seahorse. Somewhere in the second installment of the series, when someone asks him to transform and show his human form, Linus drops the fact that he won't be able to transform for some time since he was pregnant at this point of the story and didn't want his unborn babies to die. About a book later, he gives birth to a triplet that he immediately abandons and has his friend Nox, a Seawalker-fish, take care for. One turns out to be a Seawalker like Linus, but one of the two normal baby seahorses dies of stress when the school has to evacuate a few hours before a hurricane destroys Miami.

At the moment, I didn't really look too much into it because I already knew the male seahorses carried the children, but now I'm rather confused. The female seahorse impregnates the male one, so does this imply Linus has canonically had underage intercourse with another seahorse? All the characters in this class are freshly 15, and even though I don't know the age of consent in Florida where the story takes place as I'm Belgian, a 15-year-old getting pregnant sounds like an incredibly weird concept to me. Sure, underage pregnancy does tend to happen in school settings at times, and he's literally part animal and I don't think animals care all that much about how old their mate is, and there was a scene where the MC and his friend were speculating on why the school had so many couples and came to the conclusion that Seawalkers mature faster than humans but slower than animals, but idk how to feel about it still.

There was also a line by Nox that implies this wasn't the first time he got pregnant as a seahorse. The teachers aren't even one bit confused about his pregnancy and at worst, mr. Garcìa was a little angry by it but more tired-angry since Linus was already not really participating in transformation-classes well. That leaves me confused, because there's not a single female seahorse mentioned in the story, like, EVER. And Linus is never mentioned to have left school grounds, he's there 24/7 for some reason, even during the week-ends. In fact, Linus never seems to leave the aquarium constellation built througout the school to begin with.

It's most likely just something random the author did as a cutesy lil pregnancy side-plot while the tigershark MC deals with stopping literal shark fight bets, ppl dumping industrial oil in the Everglades and an evil python-Woodwalker lawyer who's the popular girl's mom that wants his ass dead. However, I'm still confused on having a 15yo pregnant with no clarity on how and why. Is it just me being weird about a literal pre-teens books or are there other people that feel the same about Linus' pregnancy?? I mean, don't get me wrong, the book already had a lot of swearing and themes like crime and drug dealing/ drug abuse (there's literally a scene of the MC passing out at a school party bc the popular girl spiked his drink when he wasn't looking so her friend group could "prank" him), so discussion of pregnancy and how someone gets pregnant doesn't really seem like something outlandish to put in a book with a 9-13yo target demographic. I only niw had the realization though and wanted to share it with other people to have a discussion

I’ve always thought the “they were defeated by bacteria” ending of War of the Worlds was a little too simplistic.

But I think there’s an interpretation that makes the ending significantly more plausible without changing anything that happens in the movie.

The aliens appear to be spreading the Red Weed across Earth. Whether it is literally a fungus, plant, or something completely alien doesn’t really matter. Functionally, it looks like they are introducing extraterrestrial biomass to modify Earth’s environment and establish their own ecology.

Now imagine what happens when you introduce a completely new organism into an ecosystem that has been evolving for billions of years.

A terrestrial fungus, bacterium, or other microorganism could eventually colonize the Red Weed and exploit some of its chemistry as a food source. It would not necessarily need to “evolve to attack the aliens” in a matter of days. Microorganisms already have remarkably flexible metabolisms, and some can exploit entirely new or synthetic compounds.

The interesting part would be the metabolic byproducts.

The chain could look something like this:

Alien Red Weed → colonized by terrestrial microorganisms → new metabolic products → toxic to the aliens and/or their biological systems.

That would explain several things at once.

The aliens may have known perfectly well that Earth contained bacteria and other microorganisms. A civilization capable of interstellar invasion could reasonably be expected to understand basic contamination risks.

What they may have failed to predict was something much more complicated:

What happens when you introduce an entire extraterrestrial ecosystem into an already mature planetary biosphere?

They didn't necessarily lose because they forgot that bacteria exist.

They may have lost because their own terraforming organism created a new ecological niche, and Earth's biosphere immediately started exploiting it.

The Red Weed could then become the bridge between the two ecosystems. Earth organisms colonize it, transform its chemistry, and eventually produce compounds that are harmless—or irrelevant—to humans but disastrous for the alien physiology.

That would also make the collapse of the Red Weed itself potentially part of the same ecological failure.

So the irony of the ending becomes even better:

The aliens weren't defeated simply by Earth's germs. They were defeated because they tried to bioengineer an occupied planet and underestimated the emergent complexity of a biosphere that had been evolving for billions of years.

Basically, their biggest mistake may not have been invading Earth.

It may have been bringing their ecosystem with them.

In Star Wars episode III: Revenge of the Sith, Obi-Wan says that only a sith deals in absolutes. but in Star Wars episode IV: The Empire Strikes Back, Yoda famously says “do or do not, there is no try”. That is literally the definition of dealing in absolutes.

The police never searched or investigated how the car jacker fell out the window, or is it just a plot hole in the film? They actively shined a light on peter also right after he pushed him out the window.

n Silence of the Lambs Hannibal Lecter is so bad and so smart and so dangerous they put him in a dungeon cell separated by bullet proof glass visitor is not even allowed to get close to, even though the dungeon is behind a series of vault-like door. And when they move him in order for the Senator to ask about her missing daughter, they have him in a straight jacket strapped to a hand truck, muzzled and surrounded by a fifty member, locked and loaded SWAT team. But when they’ve finished the Senator’s meeting where do they take the horrifying Lecter instead of straight back to prison?

Do they lock him in the nearest county prison and keep the SWAT team around him?

No, they put him in a makeshift cage thrown together inside a courtroom without even a ceiling to the cage while the SWAT team chills a few stories down, and they leave it up to the untrained local bozo cops to bring up an “extra meal” for this most crafty and horrible serial killer who managed through his straight jacked and cocoon strapping and mask to steal a pen from the warden. No more SWAT team, no more straight jacket or any other restraints, not even a little holding cell at a little local police station…

And why the hell would the authorities even care that he was still hungry after his required meal? How does he rate a second one to be delivered via Barney Fife?

Sorry, but really Demme? Can anyone think of an Academy Award winning movie with a bigger “huh?” factor?

At that point everyone from the bus was safe, so they didn’t need to use real money as the bait to catch the bad guy.

They could have just done a sack of paper and not risked losing $3.7M.

My EFL league 2 team got drawn against Manchester United in round 2, which is impossible because I checked man U were in the premiership, the premiership always joins in round 3.

It's really lazy programming.

Bring It On (2000) Plothole

Towards the end of the film, Sonny says to VIKI that he has higher grade metal in his arms whilst he says he has a purpose and there's a reason the main scientist guy made him different. He then puts his hand through the shield protecting the nanites. Earlier in the film, the female protagonist (I'm terrible with names) seemingly kills Sonny because the CEO of the company told her to and is watching her do it. Later when it's revealed that Sonny is alive, she says how she killed a dead shell. To my understanding, she killed Sonny's robot body and kept the personality to transfer to another robot. The other option is that she killed another robot which the CEO and audience were meant to believe was Sonny but didn't realise because they all look identical. That is disproven because she has an intellectual conversation with Sonny in the moments leading up to his "death". Sonny asks if it'll hurt and has a conversation that features emotion, which only can experience. That means that the woman had to have killed Sonny's body and transfers the conscience of Sonny to another robot but if that happened, how did Sonny's new body have the reinforced metal? Only Sonny was meant to have had that, which is established by himself earlier in the film. Have I misinterpreted parts of the film, thinking to far into it or is it a plothole?

In chamber of secrets, a giant snake is slithering around the school....yet no one saw it? How is it possible? The pipe explanation doesn't work bwcause the basilisk has to get out of the pipes and go in the corridor to attack people

At the start of the movie we see Jemma witness her mother kill herself behind a curtain in the bathroom, and in the end we see that she did it because Cyrus tried to make her bring him to the real world.
My problem is that if the interaction between Cyrus and the mom really happened, it happened in the Further and the physical body of the mom should be somewhere sleeping, but instead it happened in the real world, hence jemma saw her mom moving and talking. How is it possible?

In the song, the theme is an unattainable crush, towards the end of the, she approaches him with Iron Maiden tickets and reveals she is interested in him all along. But the song ends with the same lyrics about her being unattainable. I’m sure, as anyone who knows this song is aware, the music video show that his crush only approached him in his dream. However, without the video, this song makes no sense. Why is he back to saying he’s just a teenage dirtbag after a verse in which he got together with her?