⚠️!!!THIS POST CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!

I think I found a pretty big loophole in Drishyam 3 regarding the skeleton.

The skeleton found at the college was DNA-matched with Pinto's parents, which is how they established that the skeleton was Pinto's. So the police already have something extremely valuable: they have scientifically established that Pinto's actual remains are outside the grave.

Then they find a skeleton inside Pinto's coffin.

But why does that automatically mean the skeleton in the coffin is Pinto?

It could be an idol, or it could be someone else's body. Because the skeleton outside has actually been DNA-proven to be Pinto, while the one inside the coffin hasn't been proven to be Pinto.

In fact, they don't even necessarily need to dig the grave up again. The fact that Pinto's actual skeleton has already been identified somewhere else creates a direct contradiction.

If someone says, "But the DNA evidence was obtained illegally because they secretly took the parents' fingerprints/DNA," then what about the fact that the police also trespassed to bug the house? That's trespassing, eavesdropping, etc. Yet the information obtained from that operation was still used as part of the investigation.

And this reminds me of something from Drishyam 2 itself.

They could have potentially used the bedroom conversation as evidence. Meera literally says that she doesn't know where the body is and asks Vijay where the body is. Vijay doesn't react with "What are you talking about?" or deny knowing anything. He just says that he's not going to talk about it.

That could have been incredibly damaging.

But they didn't simply use the recording because it was obtained illegally. Instead, the movie built a legal/evidentiary route around it using other things.

So why couldn't they do the same thing with the Pinto DNA?

And yes, I understand that the community might not allow the police to simply dig up the grave again. But with a Supreme Court order, they could potentially do it anyway.

More importantly, they don't even need to do that.

The fact that Pinto's body/skeleton is already established to be at the college means that the remains in the grave cannot simultaneously be Pinto's actual skeleton.

It's a contradiction:

Pinto's skeleton is outside. (PROVEN)

Pinto's skeleton is supposedly inside the coffin. (it's not proved. A SKELETON IS INSIDE, which isn't even real)

Both can't be true.

And honestly, I think that's the bigger issue. The movie doesn't really need to prove what's inside the coffin. It only needs to establish that Pinto's actual remains are somewhere else. Once that is established, the skeleton in the coffin immediately becomes questionable.

For a Drishyam movie, where the entire point is that the police should be thinking several steps ahead, I'm surprised this wasn't addressed.

Plot hole

How could Lamar's plan to frame Anderton actually work?

Before seeing the Precog vision, Anderton has no idea who Crow is, where he is, or that Crow has a photograph of Sean. Lamar only tells Crow to place the photograph in his room and wait.

So what causes Anderton to ever find Crow?

But if Anderton would never have found Crow without the Precog vision, how could the Precogs have predicted him killing Crow in the first place?

Precogs are manufacturing crimes that could never physically exist otherwise. Without the Precogs acting as a GPS navigation system for the killer, the murder rate for these setups would be absolute zero, because the killer doesn't even know the room exists

A Precog is supposed to predict a future event, not provide the information necessary to create that event. Otherwise, the Precogs aren't merely predicting crimes, they are effectively helping manufacture them.

The plot of "Us" does not rely on a massive 33-year coincidence. It operates on the literal mechanics of a tether: a geographic and quantum lock.

When the 1986 swap occurred, the clone became the dominant node on the surface. Red did not voluntarily wait decades underground to plan a synchronized uprising. She was trapped by the physical rules of the tether. She could not execute the escape until the dominant node returned to the access point to trigger a collision.

The proof that this was a mechanical trigger rather than a coincidence is shown in the film:

Quantum Entanglement: The tether functions like quantum entanglement. There is no maximum distance limit to the mimicry or the shared soul. The two halves remain permanently linked across any separation. However, a physical swap or lethal severance requires absolute proximity. Red could feel the pull from anywhere, but she could only act when the dominant node walked back into the physical collision zone.

Proximity Override: Critics complain about the logistics of the underground mirroring the surface, pointing to the clone's knockoff Thriller shirt. They miss the governing rule. The underground produces crude approximations, but when the two nodes occupy the exact same physical space, forced mimicry cancels out. In the funhouse the distance reached zero, autonomy became possible, and the swap occurred. The same zero-distance condition is what Red waited decades to force again.

Predictable Routine: This was not a random vacation. Dialogue confirms it is their "summer home" and Jason finds a magic trick he left there "last year." The house retains the ballet bar from Adelaide's childhood. Adelaide even asks to go to a different beach because she is the one who performed the original swap and carries residual knowledge of the access point. Red knew the migration pattern and simply held position until the dominant node reentered the kill zone.

Fluid Timeline: The film uses a "Present Day" title card rather than hardcoding 2019. The uprising was never tied to a calendar date. It was a conditional trap waiting for proximity.

Temporal Constraint: Adelaide demands they leave the beach before nightfall. The Tethered function as shadows. Daylight pins them to their sources. Darkness permits detachment and coordinated movement. Red required that exact operational window to launch a land invasion.

Literal Definition: When Red corners Adelaide at the glass table, she dangles a pair of handcuffs in front of her and commands her to "tether yourself." The verb is used for physical, geographic restriction. It is not a metaphor.

Weapon of Choice: Red arms the Tethered with gold scissors. A pair of scissors consists of two identical, mirrored halves permanently bound at a central hinge. Separated, they exist in tension. Brought into the same physical space, they become lethal. Scissors are also the specific tool designed to sever a physical tether.

Name of the Movement: Red calls the uprising "The Untethering." She does not name it after an abstract philosophy. She names it after the physical bond that shaped her life underground, and unlike the other shadows, she alone knows what life without it looks like.

1986 Cultural Anchor: The film opens on the Hands Across America promo. Young Adelaide wears a Hands Across America shirt. Her father wins a Thriller shirt and places it over the top. After the swap, the surface clone leaves in the real Thriller shirt while the original child is left underground in the Hands Across America shirt with a knockoff thrown over it. That shirt becomes her last authentic artifact of surface life. Culturally frozen in 1986, she dresses her army in red jumpsuits and forces the human chain to physically reconstitute the logo she was wearing the night her life was stolen.

Red was not plotting a schedule. She spent decades preparing an army. The moment the dominant node returned to the Santa Cruz access point, the lock released. The uprising is the mechanical consequence of that return.

TLDR: Red is the anomaly. She is the only Tethered who ever lived aboveground first. That early experience left her with language, memory of the sky, and the capacity to organize. The other shadows recognized the difference and followed her. The surface clone, by contrast, received the full support and was guided towards dance for expression, the very things Red was forced to mirror from below. Red’s difference is not mystical. It is the residue of having crossed the tether once and retained what the pure underground never acquired.

Yeah, I get that TLDR is long too, but it's shorter by contrast, and I'm working through some dense stuff.

​

---

*Title:* I rewatched Spielberg's War of the Worlds (2005) and I can explain every plot hole

*Body:*

Okay I know everyone says 2005 War of the Worlds is full of plot holes, but after rewatching it a few times it actually makes sense. Spielberg is very tuff.

*1. The tripods were buried for a million years*

They weren't just left there. The Martians BUILDED other machines to dig the holes, buried the tripods, then left Earth. They were planning the invasion for a million years and came back when humans showed up.

*2. How did no one ever find them?*

Because Martians weren't dumb. They buried them way deeper than we ever dig. Deeper than subways, oil drilling, all that.

*3. The magic van that still works after the EMP*

The EMP kills everything with a little battery / computer chip. That van was an old diesel work van with no electronics. That's why it still starts and why the mechanic had it.

*4. Birds flying through the shield*

Birds didn't break the shield. The Martians were growing weaker from bacteria and were dying, so they couldn't keep the shields powered anymore. The birds just showed us the shields were already down.

*5. The ferry still running during the apocalypse*

Everyone was just running fast. Panic mode. The ferry crew was trying to get one last run in before everything collapsed.

*6. The basement probe that doesn't see them*

That probe is a dumb probe. It's just a camera on a stick looking for movement. Ray and Rachel stayed still, so it missed them.

*7. The basement survives a house collapsing on it*

Because Ogilvy built it out of titanium. He knew they were coming so he made his bunker tuff. That's why it didn't even crack.

*8. Why do tripods both vaporize people AND harvest blood?*

They didn't realize at first. At the start they were just vaporizing everyone. Later they realized they needed human blood to grow the red weed / terraform Earth, so they switched to grabbing people.

*9. How did Ray get to Boston so fast with no roads?*

The U.S. military slimed out a bunch of tripods and cleared the path to Boston. That's why the road was open enough for him to make it through.

*10. How did Robbie survive running into the battle?*

He's part of the inviters cult. The movie hints at humans who see Martians as angels and help them. The cult protects its own, that's why the tripods ignored him on the hill and why he ends up safe at grandma's house.

What do you guys think? Any other plot holes I missed?

---

Ready to copy-paste to r/plotholes. Want me to add the 1953 ones to it too?

We’ve all heard the classic, overly-edgy "the characters are all figments of a grieving child's imagination" trope. It’s lazy. But when you look closely at Phineas and Ferb, a much more layered and psychologically tragic theory starts to form.
My pitch: Candace is the sole real human being in Danville, and the entire show is a dissociation-based coping mechanism for profound trauma and isolation.
Here is how the pieces actually fit together:
1. Phineas and Ferb are a clinical trauma response
Think about how the brothers behave. Phineas is aggressively, relentlessly, impossibly optimistic. He never experiences genuine grief, doubt, or despair. That isn't normal childhood behavior—that is a broken mind's desperate attempt to invent an emotional antidote to deep-seated depression. And Ferb? Ferb is completely silent 90% of the time because, to someone suffering from crushing loneliness, true comfort doesn't require conversation. It just requires a steady, unmoving presence sitting right beside you.
2. The vanishing inventions aren't bad luck—they are self-sabotage
Why does Candace always fail to show Linda what the boys are doing? The fandom usually jokes about bad timing, but think about it psychologically: Deep down, Candace doesn't actually want them to stop.
If she successfully busted them, the illusion would shatter, and she’d be forced back into her stark, miserable reality. The universe conspires against her evidence vanishing because her own subconscious mind refuses to let the coping mechanism die.
3. Doofenshmirtz and Perry represent anxiety and neurosis
Dr. Heinz Doofenshmirtz and Perry the Platypus aren't just a random spy subplot; they represent Candace’s internal battle with anxiety. Doofenshmirtz builds absurd, overly complicated, needlessly elaborate "Inators" to solve minor inconveniences or petty gripes. That is the exact blueprint of an anxious overthinker blowing trivial problems out of proportion. Perry is the quiet, hyper-competent mental agent constantly swooping in at the last second to keep that internal chaos from completely destroying her psyche.
4. Linda is the static anchor
Have you ever noticed how unfazed Linda is by anything? It’s because she isn't an actual oblivious sitcom mom—she’s a flat, comforting, unchanging projection. In Candace’s internal theater, Mom is the safe space who can never truly be threatened or disrupted.
Every time Perry and Doofenshmirtz break into a bizarre musical number, it’s just Candace's brain trying to drown out a painful intrusive thought with a catchy distraction.
Change my mind.

Watching Silent Hill and ended up down this rabbit hole. The parents who take the adopted child, with an unknown past, back to where they grew up or tragedy happened, because the kid has nightmares or visions. Those are really bad parents! At the very least, they should investigate the kid's background without taking them to a terrible place, or hire a P.I. to do it. Cuz these parents also seem to be well off!

I know. I know. Then we wouldn't have movies (or video games) like silent hill. It's just a trope I realized today, and then realized just how awful it is for those kids.

I'll start: Jules Winnfield doesn't praise Jimmy's coffee in Pulp Fiction**.**
What happens next?
Maybe Jimmy gets annoyed. Maybe Jules stays longer. Maybe the whole situation with Vincent and Jules changes. Maybe, somehow, Jimmy becomes the most important person in the Pulp Fiction universe.
I'm looking for the most unnecessarily specific butterfly effects possible.
It can be serious, stupid, realistic, completely ridiculous, fictional, historical, whatever.
The smaller and more insignificant the change, the better.
p.s. i need this for my college assignment. help me pls

I watched the Extinction Of Angry birds, (a theory explaining the timeline), and I felt although a good theory that fits well and works, it takes away the fact that's it's kids franchise, not something necessarily meant to understood to such a degreee

I have 2 main plot holes on my mind below:

1) how did Fish know it was Antonio who killed Billy Stillwell in Corpus Christi?

2) how did Josephine know Antonio was wearing the rat mask at the brothel party?

I can't figure these out

I think Harry hook and princess Audrey carry the isle of the lost book like 1 2, 3 and 4 because they got less pages.

My theory beast blackmail captain hook and Philip to be terrible parents towards there kids because most of the pages is very mal center storyline and we don't what really happened at within the first book.

However Harry hook and princess Audrey point of view between mal and ben are extremely wild and fully of backstab and a lot of betrayal and loss.

And who's miss a pirate and princess on the big screen?

I've been rereading The Mirror of Her Dreams and I think I may have found a genuine plot hole near the end, but I'd like to hear what other readers think.

During the Congery meeting where Geraden and Eremis are accusing each other of treason, everyone is trying to determine who is secretly allied with Gilber and Vagel. Barsonage specifically points out that one suspicious fact is that Gilber, Vagel, and Garth seem able to come and go without explanation.

Here's my problem:

At this point, Eremis has already returned to Orison from outside the castle.

The kingdom is effectively under siege, or at minimum surrounded by hostile forces. Eremis suddenly appears back in the castle and nobody seems interested in how he got there.

Geraden is literally accusing Eremis of working with Gilber and Vagel.

Eremis is accusing Geraden of the same thing.

Barsonage is demanding proof.

Yet nobody asks Eremis the most obvious question:

"How did you get back into Orison?"

What makes this stranger is that several characters should have recognized the significance of that question:

•Barsonage had already identified unexplained travel as evidence worth investigating.

•Terisa knew Eremis had recently arrived and could see the military situation from the castle towers.

•Geraden knew Eremis was a suspect.

•Most importantly, Castelen Lebbick was present.

Lebbick is the commander of King Joyse's forces and effectively responsible for castle security. He should know who enters and exits Orison. If Eremis returned to the castle, Lebbick should have wanted to know which gate he used, who admitted him, and which guards saw him arrive.

Instead, nobody seems interested.

What really makes me think this may be a plot hole is that when Lebbick eventually starts becoming suspicious of Eremis, it's not because Eremis somehow reappeared inside a heavily defended castle. Instead, it's because of Eremis's attempt to manipulate him through his lover.

That seems backwards to me. The unexplained arrival looks like much stronger evidence than the reason Lebbick actually becomes suspicious.

Am I missing a passage that explains how Eremis got back into Orison, or did Donaldson accidentally overlook the implications of Eremis's return during the accusation scene?

I'd be interested to hear whether readers think this is:

1.A genuine plot hole.

2.Deliberate evidence of how completely Eremis controls everyone around him.

3.A case of the characters behaving irrationally under pressure.

4.Something I'm forgetting from either book.

Here cause r/Heroes didn't help me at all and kept downvoting me when I raised questions. So in this episode, Hiro travels back in time to season 1 to save Charlie and we revisit certain events from Noah's perspective from S1E10 "Homecoming". He sees her in cheer practice and tells her he would like to see her cheer and is sorry he won't be there for Homecoming the next day. Except during Season 1 during these same events, she had been grounded by Noah after punching Jackie in the face. Noah and her weren't even talking and her friend Zach had to sneak her out of her house for Homecoming. I don't think these events add up at all no matter how I think about it. You could argue Hiro changed time but how could his intervention have changed things here. Hiro didn't really interact with Noah enough to change his mind about the grounding.

The Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon is a fusion monster comprised of three Blue-Eyes White Dragon cards, in-universe, the only three copies of the card remaining, all owned by Seto Kaiba.

My question is, why is there a fusion monster designed around three Blue-Eyes when there were four? Kaiba tore up the fourth because it was owned by someone else, and he didn't want it used against him. Not really an Ultimate dragon if there could have been a four-headed version.

About Time is easily one of my favorite comfort films, and the relationship between Tim and his dad near the end is great. That being said tho, on a rewatch, the logic of the ending started confusing me.

Basically the main guy Tim can't visit his dad anymore once his new baby arrives, because jumping to any point before conception risks the Butterfly Effect replacing the child (just like what happened to his sister earlier).

Yet right before saying their final goodbye, Tim and his dad take that gorgeous walk on the beach back when Tim was eight years old.

Since that trip happens decades before any of his kids were conceived, wouldn't that trip carry the exact same risk of altering the timeline for all three children? And flip side: if simply reliving a warm memory without changing anything is safe, couldn't Tim have safely popped back for quiet ping-pong games forever? Is there some kind of logic I missed, or is this just one of those plot holes we happily forgive for the sake of a great cry? Thanks!

Hey everyone! I was rewatching Illumination's Migration (2023) and noticed a subtle, realistic detail about the Chef’s defeat that completely changes the end of the movie.

The Theory: The Chef didn't just lose; he logically crashed off-screen.

In the climax of the film, the Chef leaves the cockpit of his helicopter to capture the Mallard family, completely abandoning the controls. Here is the catch: we actively see him piloting manually beforehand, and he never turns on the autopilot.

Real-world aerodynamics apply instantly here. A helicopter is aerodynamically unstable. The moment a pilot leaves the seat without securing the controls or locking the autopilot, the torque of the rotor causes the machine to immediately tilt, dive, and lose control. Since the Chef was trapped in his own net hanging outside the cabin, he had no way to recover.

This means that despite the scene being framed as comedic slapstick, the helicopter mathematically crashed within seconds of him leaving the seat. The villain's fate was sealed by basic physics!

What do you guys think? Does the helicopter physics theory hold up for you?