Talk:The Rip Van Winkle Caper

Plot Holes

 * One is that after a 100 years a van can still run on gasoline after being in storage in the hot desert! Or that it would be inconspicious in contrast with "Future cars"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.173 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's from a Hawthorne short story with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecikierk (talk • contribs) 05:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How did the lights in the boxes come on after 100 years? Must have had some great batteries back then. Also, he died in the hot sun in the desert, yet the couple who found him were in a car with no roof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.107.193 (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In a short story version of twilight zone stories the epilogue is that authorities trace back the remains of the other three thieves-of course the moralistic ending is the same as in the orginal episode. P.s. another plot hole is the criminals thinking that after 100 years their body time clocks will still work the same-more than like as not they would rapidly aged!! {A similar plot hole is in Lost in Space where in order for the Robinson crew to reach Alfa Centuri which would take over 100 years they are in...suspended animation...no body clock logic their!} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.93.225 (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Sabotaged the getaway vehicle?
I think the earlier version of this article missed an important point in stating that De Cruz lost control of the getaway car. We are shown that he pushes the brake and that it simply doesn't work; the car just keeps accelerating.

Moments earlier, De Cruz has asked Brooks to drive and Brooks has vehemently refused, demanding that De Cruz drive instead. I think the strong implication here is that Brooks has secretly cut the brake lines, and thereby hopes to kill De Cruz, whom he obviously doesn't trust. However, this is never actually confirmed in the episode, so I didn't put it in the article.

Pirate Dan (talk) 18:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense...! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.93.225 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)