The biggest plot holes

Tools    





My favorite take-downs of lazy writing/plot contrivances are the Ryan George pitch meetings series.

I often don't really notice "plot holes"/contrivances because I'm so swept up in the story. But when things do jump out at me, they really tend to bother me (like some of the things in A Quiet Place).



A famous one is, of course, the one from The Lost World: Jurassic Park:

Where the boat crashes into the docks because the crew had been torn apart by magical, invisible, non-existent raptors. The reason for this is obvious - there are a number of scenes and story beats missing - but the net result is one of the most egregious examples of a plot hole I've ever seen.

Come to think of it, the first and third JP movies ALSO had at least one BIG plot hole/logical impossibility. Maybe it's a conscious tradition?
What was the plot hole from the first one?
__________________
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.

Bots gotta be bottin'



A famous one is, of course, the one from The Lost World: Jurassic Park:

Where the boat crashes into the docks because the crew had been torn apart by magical, invisible, non-existent raptors. The reason for this is obvious - there are a number of scenes and story beats missing - but the net result is one of the most egregious examples of a plot hole I've ever seen.
This was one I always thought about.
It's never actually shown or hinted at, that it was raptors on the boat... and on the surface it appears it was the Rex that killed the crew...
But yeah, there's parts of the crew inside the bridge of the ship.
A Rex couldn't have done this.

It seems there may have been a side story of Raptors on the boat that could have been a plot for a third movie.
Maybe some snuck aboard or whatever... and this was never fully addressed in JP3.

JP3 never actually had a script though.
They filmed it off the cuff, and most of the cast had absolutely no idea what they were going to be shooting when they got up in the morning.



Actually I think the plot hole from the first one is one that many bring up...

The Rex pen suddenly having a huge drop.
More artistic license than a plot hole I think but it's still strange how once Grant and the kids end up in the Rex pen... they don't just leave the pen the same way as the Rex did.

Another one people bring up with the original JP, is where the Rex came from at the end when it saves the group from the Raptors.
If you look behind the Rex, there's a huge open door with translucent plastic curtains over it.
Also, if you watch the scene... the Rex also didn't attack the group of humans because they're standing relatively still... but the Raptor is moving.



Gonna chuck out another one in the shadow of T2 recently making the MoFo Top 100...

T2... only living tissue can go through the time machine.
Explained in T1, the Terminator is wrapped in living tissue, so it can go through... but the T-1000 in T2 is pure metal.



Passengers (2016)...

Due to a failure in the ship's power supply caused by a meteor storm puncturing a hole through the ship...
... and the power supply is basically a giant nuclear reactor...

... the ship is now having to divert power across the entire ship to compensate for the lack of power.
And the overload on the system, is eventually going to cause a nuclear explosion and kill everyone on board.

For such an advanced ship, that can transport 5000+ people across the galaxy... and the ship has everything automated, including even the breakfast bar... surely the ship would have a fail-safe program if something does actually go wrong.

So...
Jim's hypersleep fails.
Jim tampers with Aurora's hypersleep.
And, luckily, Gus's hypersleep fails as well... meaning, by shear luck, they can now use Gus's keycard to access the ship's systems and crew-only areas.

What's happened with the hypersleep tubes, and systems around the ship crashing because the power source is overloaded and the computer is having to divert power from area to area to compensate... and the computer, the system in general really... doesn't have a failsafe in place... this is a major fault to NOT have a failsafe in place.

A failsafe... being that it should automatically wake up a senior crew member, as in, someone who can access the ship's data logs... and fix the problems.
Said senior crew member would then be able to use their authority/keycard to put themself, and anyone else, into hypersleep in the medical bay.

For a company that has 8 quadrillion dollars invested in the project... they're relying on a badly designed inefficient computer system and sheer blind luck.



I think that many things I think of as "plot holes" are just contrivances or bad/lazy writing.

In a recent film I watched there is a plot to frame someone. So the baddies disguise themselves to attack someone. Only, they don't wear any masks. And they attack the person in a bathroom with many reflective surfaces. So if the person didn't (1) avoid catching a glimpse in the mirror or (2) faint right on cue or (3) not look up, then the whole plan was a waste.

Now, something I do think is a plot hole is in the film In Darkness where
WARNING: spoilers below
the movie wants us to think a character is blind, but she really isn't. The problem is in a scene where she has her back to the bad guys and drops something important and she gropes around on the floor for it instead of looking down. No one would have seen her look down, to start with. And even if they did, her several moments of frantic groping around on the ground is much more suspicious and dangerous for her and seems like it would draw a lot more attention. Maybe you can call this a contrivance, but to me it makes zero sense from any point of view. It's a moment that exists only to fool the audience.
Good point. Thereís a character in Alexandria Quartet (the novel, I mean)
WARNING: spoilers below
whoís blind but is suspected to be a faker as she just handled stuff a tad too well, and this is sort of the opposite. But I personally find it believable that once youíve spent enough time Ďin characterí, be it as an illegal agent or a blind person, youíre so used to it you keep up appearances even when no one is looking.



Good point. Thereís a character in Alexandria Quartet (the novel, I mean)
WARNING: spoilers below
whoís blind but is suspected to be a faker as she just handled stuff a tad too well, and this is sort of the opposite. But I personally find it believable that once youíve spent enough time Ďin characterí, be it as an illegal agent or a blind person, youíre so used to it you keep up appearances even when no one is looking.
The problem is that at another dangerous moment (more toward the end of the film), she
WARNING: spoilers below
drops the facade. The thing of her not looking down is clearly just done to keep the audience thinking she is blind. That was the moment where I was like "Oh, she must be blind, because otherwise she'd be very stupid." Ha, nope.



This is a good thread. I canít think of a time I was personally disturbed by a plot hole. There are bloopers, but mostly I find characters behave unbelievably - i.e., I donít find it probable that x would do y under the circumstances. I did think recently that MaelstrŲm brushed the whole Ďyou killed my dadí issue under the carpet a bit too quickly. I mean, I liked the film very much and I do find it believable psychologically, weird as that sounds. But I felt the guy needed a bit more time to come to terms with it, instead of just going, ĎAh, well, letís get marriedí.



The problem is that at another dangerous moment (more toward the end of the film), she
WARNING: spoilers below
drops the facade. The thing of her not looking down is clearly just done to keep the audience thinking she is blind. That was the moment where I was like "Oh, she must be blind, because otherwise she'd be very stupid." Ha, nope.
Hmm, interesting. Iíll watch it and see what I think. Always find that stuff fascinating.



Hmm, interesting. Iíll watch it and see what I think. Always find that stuff fascinating.
Her actions in that moment truly do not make sense to me, and it really bugged me! It's also kind of a "blah" movie anyway, but when certain things were revealed I was annoyed more than interested.



Gonna chuck out another one in the shadow of T2 recently making the MoFo Top 100...

T2... only living tissue can go through the time machine.
Explained in T1, the Terminator is wrapped in living tissue, so it can go through... but the T-1000 in T2 is pure metal.
Thank you for posting an actual plot hole. Itís not something stupid, missing or lazy in the writing.

Itís a logical impossibility dictated by the filmís own rules. Itís more rare and is usually due to rewrites/reshoots that delete something that creates an issue in post that gets missed or canít be fixed to reconcile with what came before.

Or itís Jim Cameron flouting his clearly established rules for a cool effect.



Recommending cinemasins and constant complaints about plot holes that arenít plot holes? I feel targeted by this thread.


__________________
Check out my podcast: Thief's Monthly Movie Loot!



Maybe the time displacement equipment was just lazy, not the writing.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Thank you for posting an actual plot hole. Itís not something stupid, missing or lazy in the writing.

Itís a logical impossibility dictated by the filmís own rules. Itís more rare and is usually due to rewrites/reshoots that delete something that creates an issue in post that gets missed or canít be fixed to reconcile with what came before.

Or itís Jim Cameron flouting his clearly established rules for a cool effect.
Maybe the T-1000 has living tissue components in the metal and can fool the machine somehow?



Maybe the T-1000 has living tissue components in the metal and can fool the machine somehow?
That isnít established in the film even with an exposition dump about it by a mimetic poly alloy. None of these imply living tissue.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah that's true. A possible plot hole in the first terminator movie is why not just send a nuclear bomb back in time to destroy the whole city and get Sarah in the process rather than a Terminator who uses guns and has to track her down?

In the second movie, the plot hole is explained because skynets creator also lives in L.A. coincidentally, but it still took till a sequel to explain that.



A famous one is, of course, the one from The Lost World: Jurassic Park:

Where the boat crashes into the docks because the crew had been torn apart by magical, invisible, non-existent raptors. The reason for this is obvious - there are a number of scenes and story beats missing - but the net result is one of the most egregious examples of a plot hole I've ever seen.

Come to think of it, the first and third JP movies ALSO had at least one BIG plot hole/logical impossibility. Maybe it's a conscious tradition?
A huge plot hole, yes! It popped out at me the first time I saw it.

But I thought we were supposed to assume that the T-Rex in the hold (the only dino on the boat) got loose, ate everyone in the crew, and then went BACK into the hold and somehow set the controls to close the doors back over herself as the ship somehow pilots itself back to a port and docks!
A plot hole either way - so any explanation works - as there is no logical explanation that fits.



Yeah that's true. A possible plot hole in the first terminator movie is why not just send a nuclear bomb back in time to destroy the whole city and get Sarah in the process rather than a Terminator who uses guns and has to track her down?

In the second movie, the plot hole is explained because skynets creator also lives in L.A. coincidentally, but it still took till a sequel to explain that.
Thatís not a plot hole in the first film. Itís established that they canít send back inorganic materials, which is why the Terminator is just a skeleton wrapped in actual living flesh.

At best, itís a contrivance as it isnít logically impossible that they wouldnít send a bomb. Thus, no plot hole.

It isnít logically possible by the rules of the films that the T-1000 should even be able to pass through the time machine. Plot hole.



Batman '89 - Due to his murder parade being disrupted by Batman, the Joker ends up outside Gotham Cathedral where Batman's plane just happened to crash and he kidnaps Vicky Vale. (Presumably, both he and Vicky went to that location to see if Batman was still alive or dead). The Joker radios his henchmen to pick him up off the roof in their helicopter, but requests 10 minutes as it will take at least that long to climb to the top.

Batman climbs out from under the wreckage of his plane and pursues them into the church. BUT somehow the Joker's henchmen are already inside the church on the top floor and fight the Batman... (even though the Joker is still waiting for the helicopter and the location was a completely random one - not a predetermined meeting place or hideout).

How did the henchmen get there? Why are they there? Even if they knew where the Joker was heading when he called on the radio, how did they get to the top of the cathedral before him? If they came on the helicopter and were dropped off immediately after the Joker told them where to pick him up then why does the Joker have to wait quite a while for the helicopter to arrive?