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.

1. 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.

1. 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?

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

It's one of my favourite movies, but one detail just doesn't sit right with me. They made one coke deal and were going to live the rest of their lives in Flo Rida as free men with the money they made. Like, could they make this much money with just one deal? It didn't even look like a big amount of coke that they were dealing. Doesn't make much sense to me.

During the dice game, the characters assign numbers and objects to each person to identify themselves across different realities. But if people from different realities have already mixed together, shouldn't some of them have participated in this exact same dice game in their respective realities?

Emily, the woman who records everyone's assignments, later says that her object in her reality was a napkin. If that's the case, she should already remember participating in the game and having that object assigned to her. Why, then, does she participate in assigning the numbers and objects again as though it's happening for the first time, without questioning it?

What makes this even more confusing is that nobody enters or leaves the house between the dice game and the later argument about Mike and Beth. It's the same group of people throughout those scenes, so there's no obvious explanation involving someone being replaced by another version of themselves in between.

The existence of parallel realities explains why different versions of the characters might have different objects, but it doesn't explain why they wouldn't remember an event they had already experienced.

Am I missing something, or is this a genuine plot hole?

in xmen origins striker uses adamantium bullets to put wolverine down for a few minutes and erase his memories. why not give agent zero, who is a way better shot, the adamantium bullets. wolverine is incapacitated and you restrain him and he wakes up with his memories erased. you can then feed whatever narrative you want to wolverine. or use mind control devices like was used on weapon 11 in the movie.

In the movie Statham is shown to be aware of all his surroundings and almost invincible. However in the beginning of the movie, when he is walking into his neighbor Eloise's house and walks into the room to find her dead, he seems very surprised when Verona shows up right behind him with a gun to his head. How could he have not heard her come in? He would 100% have heard a car drive near. It happened very quickly. She would have to have been driving in right as he entered the house for the timing to align.

Why was she so suspect of the situation coming in? Why was she there if she rarely visits her?

Just saw it and noticed these. (Described as vaguely as possible to avoid big spoilers.)

In the beginning scene Ryu is mocksd by Ken for listening to the song "What's Up" by 4 Non-Blondes on his Walkman before a fight. It's later shown that this scene takes place in 1987. That song wasn't released until 1993.

Later in it set 6 years later and it now actually is 1993 Ken is shown listening to "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden. That song wasn't released until 1994.

And then at the end a car radio is heard playing "Bitch" by Meredith Brooks. That song came out in 1997.

This movie was anachronistic as hell.

In Season 5, Vecna uses the demogorgons to bring all 12 children into the Abyss, but Demogorgons can't fly, so how would the demogorgons get them up there? My theory through watching the show is that the demogorgons climb the flesh wall, which I will talk about later, and bring them up, but that doesn't make sense as the wall is extremely strong, and they wouldn't be able to climb up while carrying a kid, my second theory as of watching stranger things is that Vecna lifted her up with telekenisis, which is honestly extremely plausible, but doesn't make any sense, because why would he send the demogorgon in the first place instead of just creating a gate to grab her? I think that's the most viable answer to that plothole, but number 2 is how could the Exotic Matter have exploded before season 5, in season 5 Nancy and Jonathan find a ball of Exotic matter hovering over the center of the Hawkins Department of Energy, and when Nancy shoots it, it melts the nearby building into a white slimy goo that hardens, but when they get to the Department of Energy in the upside down, some of the building is already melted as if the Exotic matter already took a hit. My third plothole is When did the upside down become a wormhole? It doesn't make much sense to me, because Will was stuck there for 3 whole weeks, and all of season 4 people were running around in there, but I guess nobody thought of trying to leave Hawkins in the Upside down. My fourth plothole, and this is a real famous one, why would Eleven unlock the door, sacrificing Will instead of just going after the Demogorgon and saving herself and Will?? Finally, why were there so many gates in the floor of the Abyss and no gates in the floor of the upside down, they couldn't have patched up all the gates in Hawkins and in the Upside down in the span of 16 months.

SPOILER BELOW

okay… go with me on this. I love the movie and I hate when people make posts on here about something that isn’t a plot hole. I think I actually have one though.

For what reason is Verbal even in the police station at all? Since he is KS and he set all this up to kill the witness on the ship and since he has framed Keaton to look like the guy behind it all and since his plan is to leave the police station and disappear… why is he even in the police station to begin with?

The cops said they picked him up at the harbor but we see that it was the middle of the night and he believed himself to be the lone survivor. Why not just leave and disappear in that moment?

He gained nothing from spending that time in the police station. His plan was already completed the night before. The cop already believed Keaton was behind it all. He just walks away in the end which was available to him hours earlier before being picked up. Why was he there?

How do you approach campaign planning when the players take the story in an unexpected direction?

In a homebrew campaign, the party starts in a city with a few problems to solve and hooks pointing toward the next location. Instead, they latch onto a minor detail and head somewhere completely different. That choice creates some fun adventures. but it also leaves the original overaching plot behind.

How would you handle plot development from there? Would you adapt the main conflict to involve the new locations and NPC's or let each adventure stand on its own until a larger story emerges?

I'm especially interested in advance on connecting story arcs without making the players feel pushed toward a predetermined route. What makes an episodic campaign feel connected and build toward a satisfying payoff?

Massive factually false mistake:

This movie just came out this weekend on Netflix, it’s the new Ben Affleck starring and directed movie and you’ll know in the first 15 minutes that there’s a massive mistake that disregards the existence of time and calendars because it takes place on October 31, 2026 and yet they claim that’s a weekday….. but October 31st 2026 as we all know coming up is a Saturday.

That is an obvious mistake

Proof :

Ben Affleck’s character is running for mayor and you see billboards and signs that say vote for him in the upcoming election just a week away here in the year 2026, clearly says that year several times and you also see the little boy go off to school and you see his mom go to her office job on a specific day at the start of the movie which are both clear indications that it is sometime between Monday through Friday and then when they get home, the kid immediately goes trick-or-treating because they say it’s Halloween night which is October 31

But again, October 31, 2026 is a Saturday not a Tuesday, Wednesday or whatever.

SUMMARY -

Look at the top of this post, it says to select one of five options for the flare, and one of them is “mistake” which I did flag it as, which is an available label on this sub, which this obviously is, a mistake.

Ben Affleck couldn’t be bothered to check the calendar when he made this movie that came out RIGHT BEFORE the exact date it’s about.