MovieChat Forums > Capricorn One (1978) Discussion > Fun - but way too many plot holes

Fun - but way too many plot holes

posted 8 years ago by eslvalencia-59621
14 replies | jump to latest

Enjoyed this film, but you need a massive suspension of disbelief as there is too much stuff which simply doesn't make sense. I'll list them one by one

1) After strongarming them into making the fake film surely they realise that they have to kill them? If they leave them alive there's far too much chance of one of them talking.

2) After Brubaker shows signs of undependability, why do they still take the risk of letting them speak to their wives? Surely much easier to play it safe and claim interference and lack of signal.

3) They don't have security on the three of them monitoring them? Uh why? Also is it that easy to break out of a secure government facility?

4) The delay that the tech discovers, wouldn't they have thought of that obvious problem and had someone in the know monitoring that?

5) Making the tech disappear seems daft, wouldn't friends, family and co-workers question his disappearance? Maybe easier to plant drugs on him, dismiss him and have him thrown in jail, as they try with the journo. He can later be dismissed as a drug abusing crank if he talks.

6) Why do they kidnap the tech in a public bar, surely a highly risky place where people would be certain to notice?

7) They've ample opportunity to kill the journo, yet fart around messing with his car, taking a few lame shots at him in an empty town (why not finish him off there?) Similarly, if they can break into his house that easily, why not do so earlier and shoot him?

8) Why is Sam Waterson's astronaut making as much noise as possible, despite knowing guys are after him? He must know how sound carries in mountains. Also, how come he doesn't hear the helicopters land, despite being in the wilderness?

9) The journo pays $125 for the plane. That's a considerable chunk of change in 1977, equivalent to maybe $750-$800 in today's money. Did people really carry that much cash around?

10) The crop duster. Does he really expect a hardened desperado bank robber to tamely part with half his loot, especially when accompanied by an accomplice in the middle of nowhere?

11) After the 3 astronauts flee, wouldn't it seem obvious that they'll try and contact their wives if they make it to a phone? Therefore, surely the obvious course is to get the wives away from home on some pretext. A call to the media can be dismissed as the work of hoaxers, intimate conversations with family can't be explained away so easily.

12) After they figure they've split up, why do the helicopters stay together? Couldn't they cover more ground by splitting up?

13) At the end, isn't that the US president? Was security around him that light? Even before the attempted assassination of Reagan in 1981, could two guys really speed into a meeting POTUS is addressing and run up that close, without being stopped or detained by secret services personnel?

Enjoyed watching this, but these plot holes reduce it from a potentially great film to an average adventure flick.

[–] hornacek 8 years ago

3) They had them locked in a room, they didn't think they'd be able to get out of it. Who suspected they would use a medal to remove the hinges on the door?

4) They probably did have someone monitoring the delay, but that tech was going above and beyond noticing the delay and investigating it.

6) They kidnapped the tech in the bar because they realized he was friends with a journalist and was talking to him about his theory. They had to grab him immediately.

9) The journalist had some cash on him already, and then he borrowed $100 (?) from his female journalist friend when he borrowed his car.

10) Telly Savalas is a pretty imposing figure. He sized up Gould's character pretty quick and knew that he could handle him.

11) They were probably monitoring the wives' phones.

12) I think they had more than 2 helicopters since they were first searching all 3 directions, then once they killed each of the first 2 astronauts they had the helicopters searching in their direction rerouted. In theory there could have been 6 helicopters total and they were all searching for Brolin at the end, but they would have been spread out so only 2 of them were chasing the plane.

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

The biggest plot holes in the film center on how the conspirators are handling Caulfield. They go from sabotaging his car to taking shots at him and frame him for drug possession but after he gets bailed out of jail, they seem to lose all interest in tailing him. That makes no sense whatsoever. Frankly, I think the film should NOT have had these things happening to Caulfield. It would have meant losing the car sequence but the film would have been better paced.

One plot point that's never established is whether David Huddleston's Congressman Peaker is in on the conspiracy. The film sets himself up as a guy very concerned with the program but we never see a scene that implicates him in the plot (though his reaction to Brubaker's arrival at the end seems more like "Oh, sxxx" then "Oh my God.)

[–] hannahrose313 8 years ago

I think the people in on the conspiracy figured that once Caufield was arrested for drug possession, his reputation, which was established as already being lousy, would be down the toilet. I mean, he was even well known for chasing conspiracy theories

Plus, I like that we never know who is actually in on it. Holbrook notes that there are people even bigger than him in charge, and I think that's enough to insinuate Huddleson.

[–] hannahrose313 8 years ago

1. It's never stated, so yes, we can assume that they considered killing the men based on how they acted during and after the mission. Personally, I found the original plan Holbrook's character tells Brubaker hokey, and thought that the were going to be killed sometime after the landing anyway.
2. It had probably been planned WEEKS, if not from the beginning that the astronauts would talk to their wives. This was standard procedure during the moon landings which had become stale by the time Apollo 13 rolled around, but with Mars being a new venture, the messages to the wives meant big money to both the TV networks and NASA. I'm sure both parties would've already spent considerable money to set it up. So, if they were cancelled, it would look just as suspicious as if there was an "interruption."
3. Well they can't show every moment the astronauts are in screen. It can be assumed that they WERE monitored in the facility, plus if they did anything wrong they had their families to consider. As we saw later, they had no clue where they were and were stationed in harsh conditions. The higher ups knew that if they somehow got away, they wouldn't get far. So the chance of them breaking out was slim. When they did break out, it was when they were placed in a private room and the higher ups were busy. The facility wasn't in use, and if there were a lot of men stationed there, it would look fishy. And no, it wasn't a government facility.
5. Who knows, maybe the guy didn't have much family or friends? He was living in a small appartment, alone. That's the thing about someone disappearing, foul play can never be proven. I'm sure people would've questioned it, but those in change covered their tracks pretty well.
7. It was stated that Caufield already had a bad reputation as a journalist by his peers. More importantly he was know for chasing conspiracy theories, while following false leads, and grasping at straws to prove his point. The people in charge probably knew he wasn't a threat, and thought it better to discourage or scare him than get more blood on their hands.
8. Waterston has been climbing that mountain FOR DAYS. He was exhausted, and most likely knew he wasn't going to make it. He was trying to put himself in good spirits, and keep himself sane (you saw what happened to OJ) by talking to himself.
9. 700-800 USD? I don't know where you got that figure, but that's insane! Just going by inflation rates alone, 125 USD would equal a little under 500 USD. Still a lot of money, but there are several other factors in determining the worth of a dollar than inflation. It would probably be somewhere between 400-500 USD though. Not too unbelievable, and someone who would have to put themselves in comprimising positions would know that carrying around that much money is important, and necessary.
10. "Hardened desperado bank robber", I'm pretty sure Savalas' character could tell Goulds character wasn't quite the kind of character you described. However, he knew he was desperate and what he was doing probably wasn't legal, and had money involved.
12. They did split up. Holbrook tells them to during the phone conversation. I don't know why you think they didn't ha ha.
13. Yeah. That's pretty unbelievable that the car would've drove up like that without being checked. It was obviously added for dramatic effect. Not really a plot hole...just unlikely ha ha.

[–] bizerta 8 years ago

$125 then is like $500 today. Whenever I go to the cash machine, I take out $400. As someone else pointed out, $100 came from Karen Black.

Waterston noise would carry, at most, 100m if the helicopter engines were off. If they knew his location within 100m, he would have seen them.

Other plot holes:

Gas in the jet. As a pilot, I get uncomfortable when the fuel is less than an hour. Besides, there was no way to refuel in the desert, so the real pilots should have had enough fuel to get somewhere.

Did they ever think of picking up the jet's radio and saying the magic word, "Mayday"

What's the minimum number of people "in" on the charade? 200? Pilots, TV crew, crew at launch site, the construction workers who set up the fake Mars, those who designed the electronics to hide the conspiracy, etc. If all three astronauts wanted to blow the whistle, how about any of the other 200?

Caufield drives to Black Rock. The sign says, "Black Rock, Arizona". It's over 800 miles from Houston to Arizona.

[–] eslvalencia-59621 8 years ago

Hmmm, regarding the money thing, I genuinely wonder if that's some North America / Europe cultural difference? I don't know anyone who would routinely carry round more than $50 - $100 equivalent. Why would you? There's the risk of losing it, being robbed etc and no sense or reason to do so. You can pay for everything by bank card and if there are larger sums involved, by bank transfer.

[–] bizerta 8 years ago

I know I'm in the minority. I pay with cash because ... (A) There's no shock at the end of the month. (B) People who pay with cash tend to watch what they spend. When one sees the money leaving the wallet, one tends to take purchases slightly more seriously. Plastic makes is to easy to ignore one's budget. Those who pay with cash tend to spend 5%-10% less. (C) Gas is cheaper. My dentist gives me a 2% discount if I pay with a check or cash. (D) I worry less about identity theft. (E) Nobody is tracking my purchases.

[–] eslvalencia-59621 8 years ago

I get some of that, but it does confirm what I said about Europe/North America cultural differences. Western European countries have effectively ceased using checks and many Eastern European ones never adopted them in the first place. It's probably 12-13 years ago I last wrote a check. Most businesses in the UK and Ireland wouldn't accept them. In their view, cash, bank transfers and card payments carry less fraud risk. In fact for the discount, I know some places that will give discounts if paying by card. Cash carries more of a security risk and businesses need to take the time to go to the bank to pay it in. On the privacy issue, I do that too, but living in a big city, if I need more cash, I just go to an ATM and draw it out there. I wouldn't feel comfortable carrying large sums around.

[–] mpopham 8 years ago

People in the pre- debit card and pre- ATM era tended to carry more cash than they do today. Most of what Caulfield had on him seems to have been given to him by Karen Black's character.

A much bigger plot hole is how Caulfield figured out that Brubaker was wandering around in the desert in the first place. He finds the abandoned army base where the Mars landing was staged, and Brubaker's medallion. But all that confirms for him is that Brubaker had been there. He then goes to the crop duster and says he's looking for "a man who is lost". But while the audience knows that the astronauts have escaped, there's no reason for Caulfield to think this is true. Even if he did believe the astronauts had escaped the facility, he should be looking for all three, not just one.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 6 years ago

Finding Brubaker wasn't a big deal to me

Caulfield didn't know which of the three astronauts he was looking for OR where ... BUT Albain mentions the helicopters, so they follow along

The gas station turned out to be the best place for Brubaker to hide, the helicopters to search, and therefore for Albain and Caulfield to check out

Most of the other questions are answered above or attributable to human fallibility, which is kind of the theme of the movie anyway

And it seems likely the techie, Whitter, doesn't have family or friends (besides Caulfield), which is why he was so dedicated to his work AND easy to vanish

But I've wondered about Willis (Sam Waterson) on the cliff a lot over the years.

I suppose he could've heard the helicopters fly by, but didn't hear them land. Hard to believe an astronaut would mistake those sounds, though. I guess there's no explanation for this one other than it being a truly awesome payoff.

Like the helicopters staying together. Arguably impractical but gave us GREAT visuals of them hovering and (unnecessarily) turning to face each other like giant, evil, robot insects.

[–] ExTechOp (2770) 6 years ago

Just watched it again and something even more horrible occurred to me.

Willis starts telling the joke about three minutes from the top. When he reaches the top, he still manages to deliver the punchline and start laughing (to date, the saddest laughter I've ever heard in a movie).

Maybe he DID hear them land, and started the joke because by that point just didn't care any longer.

Hard to believe an astronaut would give up like that, but after eight months of fakery, and (if the movie's chronology fits) two days of climbing, maybe he'd had enough.

Like I said, horrible notion of climbing slowly to certain death like that.

It's still an awesome payoff, either way.

[–] duckofprey (1557) 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Poopsey1 (960) 4 years ago

One obvious fatal flaw is when the flight crew is taken off Capricorn One they cannot then talk to mission control. surely mission control would have tried to talk to the flight crew before and during liftoff.

[–] rnmboon (437) 4 years ago

What I find so unbelievable about this movie is how a NASA administrator seems to have the power to control all sorts of government agencies in order to make people disappear and assassinated and to have a reporter arrested by the FBI. This while he pursues a scheme to make his government believe that they landed on Mars. If you have all this power then why would you bother? I love a good conspiracy-story but it seems a bit much.