Options
Film plotholes you cant stop thinking about
I recently saw the 2010 horror film wreckage which wasnt too good, theres one major thing i cant get out of my head.
There was a scene where a woman survived the killers plot, and when the police were trying to find out if she saw the killer she was too traumatised to answer. They left her for a few minutes and then suddenly she blurted out "wait, i saw his shoes.." (Or words to that effect) and then she was suddenly killed before she could reveal what was distinctive about them.
What bugs me is you find out at the end who the killer is, and nowhere in the film was there any reference to his shoes or his feet. The way the character said it made it seem as though the type of footware he was wearing would be a major clue to the audience as to who the killer was, but it didnt help.
It ruined the film because all i was thinking about for the rest of it was why they decided to have a scene like that if it didnt point to who the killer was.
Has anyone else ever experienced this? When you either see a major plot hole in a film or things are left unanswered or open ended. I like films to tie everything up by the end rather than leaving things to the audience to interpret.
There was a scene where a woman survived the killers plot, and when the police were trying to find out if she saw the killer she was too traumatised to answer. They left her for a few minutes and then suddenly she blurted out "wait, i saw his shoes.." (Or words to that effect) and then she was suddenly killed before she could reveal what was distinctive about them.
What bugs me is you find out at the end who the killer is, and nowhere in the film was there any reference to his shoes or his feet. The way the character said it made it seem as though the type of footware he was wearing would be a major clue to the audience as to who the killer was, but it didnt help.
It ruined the film because all i was thinking about for the rest of it was why they decided to have a scene like that if it didnt point to who the killer was.
Has anyone else ever experienced this? When you either see a major plot hole in a film or things are left unanswered or open ended. I like films to tie everything up by the end rather than leaving things to the audience to interpret.
0
Comments
Characters disappear for no reason in John Carpenter's movies: Janet Leigh in "The Fog", Joanna Cassidy in "The Ghosts of Mars" and Harry Dean Stanton for most of "Christine".
Janet Leigh's character sets off in a parade, implying a horrible fate is in store and is never seen again. Rumour has it that there was no money left in the budget to finish the scene so it was just dropped.
Episode I - Why didn't the Jedi testify that the Trade Federation had indeed invaded Naboo and tried to kill them?
Episode II - Why did they leave Shmi Skywalker on Tatooine for a decade?
Episode III - Why would Padme be so shocked about Anakin murdering children when he had previously done so in the previous episode, confessed these murders to her, and she didn't give a damn?
Episode IV - If Luke is being hidden from the Empire on Tatooine, why didn't they change his name from "Skywalker" to something else, and move him from the Lars farm, which Anakin had previously visited?
Episode V - How would a few days of training with Yoda prepare Luke to become a Jedi when previous episodes established that it takes up to a decade for a Jedi to graduate from apprentice to full knight?
Episode VI - Why would the Empire build a second Death Star when the Rebels had already figured out that it was vulnerable to internal attack?
It's not so much plotholes in the story as story in the plotholes.
When I was a kid, I was really bothered by Superman's unexpected ability to turn back time. I wasn't bothered about the ridiculous concept that one can turn back time by spinning the earth. As a kid, I can be very forgiving where superhero / fantasy / paranormal films were concerned.
No, I was bothered that Superman didn't go further back in time to prevent certain events from happening. Such as that incident involving Kryptonite. After much musing, I concluded Superman was a selfish jerk.
Mirrors
This is a continuity error, really. A recent horror film in which a character says "There is no electricity here" when showing the protagonist around an empty building, but there are working lights in some rooms from thereon. The ladies changing room and the basement, for example.
Professor Snape not being made Professor of Dark Arts in HP5 to stop the ministry appointing someone, seeing as all the reasons for him not being given dark arts were forgotten in HP6.
In HP2 the bathroom hid the entrance to the chamber of secrets, yet the bathroom could have only been there a couple of hundred years tops, so how come the Chamber wasn't discovered when it was built plus the plumbing was way to small for the basilisk to fit through.
I think the argument was that Indiana Jones had no real impact on the film's outcome, which isn't correct. Without his presence the Ark would have remained in Nazi hands, even after the first had lot melted. Jones' presence ensured the Americans got there before a second lot of nazis arrived and carried out further experiments on it. The TV show itself received criticism for coming up with such a poorly thought out argument. What's sad is that most of the show's audience just accepted it without giving it a moments thought, which doesn't say much about most if its audience.
Watch Cinemasins on youtube tear the Last Stand apart.
The trilogy has more holes than a sieve but when Marty returns to the 1880s to rescue Doc Brown the fuel tank on the Dolrean is damaged so they have to hijack the train. What about the Dolrean that Doc Brown returned back in?
OK for arguments sake Doc Brown had used up all the petrol..why didn't Marty/Doc Brown simply write a similar note like Marty received at end of BTTF2 telling Marty to bring some extra petrol with him or even set the time to when the Indians and Calvary had passed by the cave... Back to 1955 Marty would have got note and drove back this avoiding issue with petrol etc etc.
There's a difference between plot holes and a viewer not understanding the concept of the film's reality.
First of all there's no fuel in the other Delorean because Doc tells Marty in 1955 at the drive-in "I've put gas in the tank".Secondly they can't use that Delorean anyway because that has to stay there so that Marty can find it and use it in 1955.And thirdly Doc doesn't want Marty to come back for him in 1885.He wants him to go home to 1985.So Doc's not expecting him which means that the only way he can inform Marty to bring extra fuel is to write another letter after Marty's arrived.That will result in Marty having to go back to 1885 with another Marty waiting there with Doc -Paradoxes etc.Hijacking the train was the best option.
Turns out the aliens have a violent reaction to water despite spending alot of the film living in the crops. Didn't these plants need any water during that time? Pretty dumb aliens too, coming to a planet that is two-thirds water on its surface.
Not only that, but it ends with Mel Gibson having his faith in God restored because they all managed to survive through it. Though surely the very existence of aliens would put a big question mark over everything in the Bible. But I get that it's his restored faith that's important here, not what he invests his faith in.
Two inescapably annoying traits of the film that I can't look past.
The same with Bladerunner: no matter what Deckard did, all the replicants were going to die anyway, apart from Rachel, who was saved by Gaff. All the human characters Deckard could have saved also ended up dead so all he actually accomplished was to get beaten up a lot.
Ardent anti-semite and racist suddenly sees the error of his ways and becomes a reformed character after a bumming in the shower.
and why doesn't the bad guy just shoot james bond rather than make him an expensive fish supper whilst explaining his plan for world domination ,, and give him one of his horny female workers?
It's already been pointed out why this is overly simplistic, but even if true, it doesn't make it a "plot hole".
That was the problem I had with that film. Doesn't some guy say to him 'Has anything you've done made your life better?' . Bloody ridiculous. If somebody had asked Ghandi the same question, we'd think he was a f**king idiot, yet it prompts that damascean conversion.
How so?
The premise is fundamentally flawed, but I don't think it's a plot hole. It's an old theory that can never work in practice. Well, fair enough if we're talking about the relevance of certain characters, though. Such as the boyfriend.
I'm not sure how you've instantly jumped to that conclusion. There were a few contributing factors as to how he became a racist thug in the first place, and just as many as to why he came to question his beliefs and eventually change them.
In episode 4 we see Lukes Aunt and Uncle as a couple probably in their early 60's, yet in Episode 3 their shown as in their early 20's, the gap between the 2 is only 16 years. Obi Wan Kenobi is like late 20's early 30's in episode 3 but ends up nearer 70 in episode 4, again only 16 years later.
No one ever seems to remember the droids. Luke seems to learn a lot from Yoda in Empire Strikes back, even though the time is only a few days at the most. Darth Vader doesn't regonise a droid he built, only 20 odd years before, admittedly C3P0 was in bits.
would the Nazis have even found the Ark without Indy tho ? it seemed to me they followed him to Nepal / Marion to get the Staff off Ra .
.
I regard her entire character as a plothole, because she makes the situation far worse than it needed to be. Had she simply opened the door, let them rob the room and leave, she would have been fine. The leader of the robbers was so reasonable, he was considerate enough to give her daughter an insulin injection.
Star Trek: The Motion Picture - Why would they go to such trouble to refit practically every system on the Enterprise instead of just building an entirely new ship?
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan - Why would Kirk have had any obligation to check up on Khan's progress? That wasn't part of the original deal in "Space Seed". All Kirk agreed to was to leave them on the planet, and even THAT was pretty generous.
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock - Why didn't the Federation not go to war with the Klingon Empire for destroying the USS Grissom (killing all but two crewmembers) and then murdering a Federation scientist? If Sisko was around back then, he would have had the Klingon leader's balls on a plate for that.
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Where did the crew get an entirely new bridge from on their Klingon bird of prey, and what was the point of changing it from the bridge seen in Star Trek III
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier - How did they travel from the Alpha Quadrant to the centre of the galaxy in just a few hours? It should have taken about 100 years.
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country - Why was the Romulan ambassador sitting in on all top secret Federation military briefings?
Star Trek Generations - How did Soren's rocket reach the Veridian star in just a few seconds?
Star Trek First Contact - Why do the Borg, who operate as a single mind, require a Queen if individuality is completely contrary to their entire philosophy?
Star Trek Insurrection - Why is the Enterprise controlled by an old Commodore 64 joystick?
Star Trek Nemesis - Why would Shinzon want revenge against humanity, when his existence, abandonment, and torture was entirely caused by Romulans?
Star Trek Reboot - Why would Kirk, a cadet, be promoted almost instantly to captain?
Star Trek Into Darkness - What was the point of having Khan in the film at all, and casting a white British man to play him? They may as well have created an entirely new character from scratch.