The biggest plot holes

Tools    





Skynet does NOT want to do so much damage that it will not be invented in the first place. A nuke would be a massive intervention into the timeline. And we learn that Cybedyne starts in the same area you would have to nuke to kill Sarah Connor.

The Terminator is a surgical strike. It looks human. It is working from the best information it has available. It is making sure that it is killing every possible mother of John Connor. It is confirming kills (it's not gambling, it needs to know).
Nice!



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Skynet does NOT want to do so much damage that it will not be invented in the first place. A nuke would be a massive intervention into the timeline. And we learn that Cybedyne starts in the same area you would have to nuke to kill Sarah Connor.

The Terminator is a surgical strike. It looks human. It is working from the best information it has available. It is making sure that it is killing every possible mother of John Connor. It is confirming kills (it's not gambling, it needs to know).
Yeah that makes sense, good points!

As for T2, I don't think the T-1000 not having flesh is necesasrily a plot hole, because since he is able to fool humans he is living flesh, perhaps his material can fool the time machine? The T-800 said that he is made out of "genetic polly-alloy", genetic as in human genetics perhaps, and therefore can fool the machine? That's what I always gathered from it.

Or maybe since it takes place in 2029, where as the first movie was in 2026, Skynet has developed a more advanced time machine in that time, where as the human freedom fighters have to stick with their primitive 2026 time machine?



Yeah that makes sense, good points!

As for T2, I don't think the T-1000 not having flesh is necesasrily a plot hole, because since he is able to fool humans he is living flesh, perhaps his material can fool the time machine? The T-800 said that he is made out of "genetic polly-alloy", genetic as in human genetics perhaps, and therefore can fool the machine? That's what I always gathered from it.

Or maybe since it takes place in 2029, where as the first movie was in 2026, Skynet has developed a more advanced time machine in that time, where as the human freedom fighters have to stick with their primitive 2026 time machine?
Mimetic Poly-alloy.
Means it can form itself to fit various shapes.
__________________
Originally Posted by doubledenim
Garbage bag people fighting hippy love babies.

Bots gotta be bottin'



Putting bare metal through the time machine though is explained I think in Genysis as putting foil in a microwave... so even the god-awful sequel was able to explain it is not possible to send metal through the time machine.
Still though, even Genysis has a T-1000 in 1984

Only thing I can think of, is something not seen on camera... maybe the T-1000 was wearing a skinsuit when it went through, which t then simply removes once it's arrived in the past.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Mimetic Poly-alloy.
Means it can form itself to fit various shapes.
Oh okay, well I can't understand some of what Schwarzenegger says.



I think it's the confluence of the accent with mostly made-up combinations of sci-fi words that's the issue. When he says things we've heard before it's pretty easy to understand.



I just thought of another plot hole... though like the Rex pen and the giant drop in Jurassic Park, it might just be artistic license.

Poltergeist (1982)
The bodies weren't moved when the housing estate was built.
"They only moved the headstones!"

It's explained that some of the Freeling's neighbours have swimming pools. Even the Freelings are having a pool put into the yard.

It's also explained Diane is worried about Carol-Ann falling into the freshly dug hole.
Steve explains that the pool is only 3 meters... so Carol-Ann wouldn't really get hurt.

3 meters is about 10 feet.
As explained by Steve when he even says "Ever dived off a 3 meter diving board, honey? 3 meters is about 10 feet"

So like... when Diane ends up at the end of the movie falling into the freshly dug swimming pool, which is 3 meters deep... the bodies and coffins start popping up for frights and scares.

So... how deep were the bodies buried when the land was being used as a cemetery??!!??!!??!!
How come nobody else has discovered bodies in their yards while getting pools put in?

I thought graves were 6 feet deep. 7 at most.
For the finale fright to happen, you're looking at the bodies being buried at least 11 feet down, maybe even 12+.
That's a helluvagrave.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Or perhaps another flaw in Jurassic Park is, why not just have .50 Gatling guns on tripods, mounted to the jeeps with a gunman?

Does Die Hard have a plot hole in the sense that the villains were relying on the FBI to cut the power, when they could have just cut it themselves? I mean I am no expert, but they were able to cut the phonelines no problem, so couldn't you cut the power therefore?



Or perhaps another flaw in Jurassic Park is, why not just have .50 Gatling guns on tripods, mounted to the jeeps with a gunman?
That was kinda the point with JP though.
Hammond constantly going on about "Spared no expense"... when he clearly had... on almost every aspect of the park.

They had decent computers... but only 1 person who could do the job with them.
Fences that were useless if the power was turned off.
A park ranger, Muldoon, who knew nothing about the animals, even though Hammond said he "knows more about Raptors than anyone".
The weaponry is substandard (look at the minimal damage cause when Grant shot the window)...
Jeeps that are only just able to outrun a Rex at 32mph.
No locking mechanisms on the car doors or windows that lock keeping people safe from Dilophosaurus venom (the "keep windows up" signs say to me that the windows are not locked).
During the storm, the entire island is basically evacuated leaving only 2 staff members in the control room with the 1 unexperienced game warden.

Jurassic Park is borderline satire of big companies.



Registered User
A plot hole is “that plot point literally could not happen given the established rules of the universe. It is impossible.”
That's a bit stringent isn't it? I mean, it is not physically impossible (by the known laws of physics of a given 'verse) for a lot of things to happen which don't make any sense. There are lots of rungs on the possibility ladder, right?

Logically Possible (does not entail self-contradiction)
Physically Possible (does not violate natural law)
Biologically Possible (does not exceed architecture of an organism)
Sociologically Possible (does not contradict what is true of people, in general)
Psychologically Possible (does not contradict the inner life of the character)

We might, for example, establish Richard Kimble, a man desperate to clear his name and to catch his wife's killer. We might watch years of Kimble attempting to do so. If we saw an episode where it would have been relatively easy for Richard to clear his name and to catch the one-armed man, audiences would protest that this was a plot-hole. Why didn't he just call Lt. Gerard and tell him that the one-armed man was trapped in the gatehouse and that the exculpatory evidence was right outside the gatehouse? This does not violate logical law, physical law, biological law, or perhaps even what is sociological possible, but if it violates what we know about the character (especially in relation to the point of the artwork), then I think people would be right to object that this is a plot hole.

I think you're right that a plot hole is not, "I have a better idea," but that you are too restrictive in limiting it to physical possibility. I think it would be closer to it to say that competent audiences would say of a plot hole that, "That would not/should not have happened." It just has to be good enough that even if it isn't the best idea, that it is the sort of thing you would expect to see in this (fictional) world, given your knowledge of the real world, general narrative rules, medium specific expectations (e.g., it is not confusing to us to watch a film with "cuts" and "wipes" and other conventions).




Does Die Hard have a plot hole in the sense that the villains were relying on the FBI to cut the power, when they could have just cut it themselves? I mean I am no expert, but they were able to cut the phonelines no problem, so couldn't you cut the power therefore?
The power-guy played by Rick Ducommon explains in an argument with his boss and the FBI guys:
His boss is saying the power can't be cut locally and has to be done downtown at the HQ.
Ducommon is saying "I got a radio, I can just call them and tell them"...

So he radios HQ, and they cut the power.

Hey presto... vault opens.



That's a bit stringent isn't it? I mean, it is not physically impossible (by the known laws of physics of a given 'verse) for a lot of things to happen which don't make any sense. There are lots of rungs on the possibility ladder, right?

Logically Possible (does not entail self-contradiction)
Physically Possible (does not violate natural law)
Biologically Possible (does not exceed architecture of an organism)
Sociologically Possible (does not contradict what is true of people, in general)
Psychologically Possible (does not contradict the inner life of the character)

We might, for example, establish Richard Kimble, a man desperate to clear his name and to catch his wife's killer. We might watch years of Kimble attempting to do so. If we saw an episode where it would have been relatively easy for Richard to clear his name and to catch the one-armed man, audiences would protest that this was a plot-hole. Why didn't he just call Lt. Gerard and tell him that the one-armed man was trapped in the gatehouse and that the exculpatory evidence was right outside the gatehouse? This does not violate logical law, physical law, biological law, or perhaps even what is sociological possible, but if it violates what we know about the character (especially in relation to the point of the artwork), then I think people would be right to object that this is a plot hole.

I think you're right that a plot hole is not, "I have a better idea," but that you are too restrictive in limiting it to physical possibility. I think it would be closer to it to say that competent audiences would say of a plot hole that, "That would not/should not have happened." It just has to be good enough that even if it isn't the best idea, that it is the sort of thing you would expect to see in this (fictional) world, given your knowledge of the real world, general narrative rules, medium specific expectations (e.g., it is not confusing to us to watch a film with "cuts" and "wipes" and other conventions).
No. It's a specific issue dealing with logical possibility, not logical probability.

As my first post in this thread said, a plot contrivance is not a plot hole.

You're complaints would be contrivances and poor writing. Not plot holes.



Registered User
No. It's a specific issue dealing with logical possibility, not logical probability.

As my first post in this thread said, a plot contrivance is not a plot hole.

You're complaints would be contrivances and poor writing. Not plot holes.
You're shifting up a rung on the ladder. Logical possibility is more restrictive than physical possibility. I can imagine a mountain made of U-235, although this would violate the laws of physics. Likewise, it is physically possible for a person to have wings, although it is biologically impossible.

Where exactly are you standing on the question of "possibility"?



You're shifting up a rung on the ladder. Logical possibility is more restrictive than physical possibility. I can imagine a mountain made of U-235, although this would violate the laws of physics. Likewise, it is physically possible for a person to have wings, although it is biologically impossible.

Where exactly are you standing on the question of "possibility"?
No. I'm maintaining fidelity to the specific meaning of the term "plot hole."

It deals with logical possibility in terms to the rules of the film's universe. This relagates 99% of the semantic debate you're attempting to pointless.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
The power-guy played by Rick Ducommon explains in an argument with his boss and the FBI guys:
His boss is saying the power can't be cut locally and has to be done downtown at the HQ.
Ducommon is saying "I got a radio, I can just call them and tell them"...

So he radios HQ, and they cut the power.

Hey presto... vault opens.
But what I mean is, when the terrorists first take over the building like an hour or more ago, why didn't they just cut the power then, and open the vault then, and save an hour of time? The explanation still doesn't explain why they waited for an hour or more, for the FBI to do it.



Because like I said, it's explained by the power guy, they can't cut the power to the building locally.



OH!
Also... along with the power not being able to be cut locally...

Theo, has to hack the system first as well.
He has to unlock the series of locks on the vault... and like he says to Hans "The electro magnetic seal" needs to be cut last... and he doesn't know how to do it.
What happens, is once the locks are cut, the electro magnetic seal will kick in as an emergency measure.

Hans's timing... means Theo cuts the locks down... then, the electro magnetic seal kicks in... an hour or so later, the FBI cuts the building's power, meaning the electro magnetic seal is then useless.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay. Why can't the power be cut locally though? They say that it can't be but why? I thought every building has power going to it by wires, and therefire the power can be cut. Unless they found a way to send electricity to the building through radio transmission?



Well, think about it...
To cut a building's power completely, you'd need access to some pretty powerful equipment.

When they cut the phonelines, he just fired through them with a chainsaw... do that to a powerline and you're a post-toastie.

The building with have backup power supplies sure... but to completely shut it down, you need to shut down the generator.