Talk:Plot hole

Dodgy examples
In Die Hard 2: Die Harder the reason the planes can now land at the end of the movie is because McClane opens the the fuel release of the terrorists plane as it is taxiing to take off, then ignites the the fuel. This leads to a long line of fire which acts as much more of an indication as to how planes should land than the plane that crashed earlier. 129.94.225.153 (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There was once a real-life device that did something very similar - see Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation (FIDO) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.190.26 (talk) 21:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In Superman II isn't the regaining of powers explained by the fact that Superman removed the key crystal from its rightful place to show it to Lois Lane and she left it laying in the snow, so when all the crystals were destroyed the important one survived, allowing Superman to later regain his powers? Also isn't the On Her Majesty's Secret Service example is more a minor goof than an actual plot hole? Asa01 22:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As for the James Bond thing - there's the idea that "James Bond" wasn't an individual character, but rather the official codename assigned to a top operative; thus Blofeld did not recognize the new James Bond. DS 14:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a mistake because the novels were filmed out of sequence. Their first meeting is in the novel of 'OHMSS' so Blofeld does not recognise Bond. When the novels were filmed out of sequence in the films, they had already met in an earlier film, however, the "first meeting" scene was adapted from the 'OHMSS'' novel in error. Asa01 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The "James Bond is just a code name" argument doesn't really hold any water. It's never been stated or even implied in the novels or films that "James Bond" is just a code name for British agents. The fact that Bond and Blofeld never recognize each other despite a previous meeting is inarguably a plot hole. DT29 20 September 2006


 * Why would Blofeld recognize him? Sean Connery ("You Only Live Twice") and George Lazenby ("On Her Majesty's Secret Service") look nothing alike.Pooneil 23:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

To belatedly come back to this: Superman regaining his powers in Superman II is a classic plot hole, evidenced by the fact that you need to construct a line of reasoning yourself to justify it since nothing in the movie will. There's no indication in the movie that the crystal left is the "key crystal" or "most important one", but even if it was, how would this explain Superman regaining his powers, especially after being told explicitly that the process is irreversible? So maybe there's a loophole, fine, but then that loophole needs to be explained, since Superman regaining his powers is absolutely crucial to the plot.

This is a good example of a plot hole because it's very likely to make viewers stop and go "Huh? How did that happen?" Compare this with the minor plot holes of the now powerless Clark managing to get himself and Lois back to civilization from the North Pole, and later hiking all the way back himself to regain his powers... Is there a bus stop nearby, or something? 82.92.119.11 20:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The Rock-A-Doodle example seems dodgy to me as I seem to recall an explicit mention of the Sun rising "out of old habit" at the very start of the movie.

Definition of plot hole
I always thought that a plot hole was an inconsistency or a self-contradiction in the plot. What this article describes (ie, the criminal making a left turn into the alley to escape the police) is more like an unlikely occurence, which is common in storylines for the sake of advancing the plot.

Incidentally, the examples do indeed fit my supposed definition of plot hole. Viltris 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * What this article describles is an unlikely occurence given the already known, established rules of the story's world/characters/backstory or plot. Therefore, it can and DOES describe an " inconsistency or self-contradiction in the plot". If a journey takes six weeks in one novel, and a later sequel has the same journey take place in six hours, if you don't explain how it got so much faster, it's inconsistent, self-contrdictory, and describing an (given the previous information the reader got) "unlikely occurence". If an unlikely event is left completely unexplained in the story, it's an inconsistency of plot, therefore, a plot hole. Make sense now?  169.139.190.6 21:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There, though, could be plot holes that the writer could intentionally leave in order to leave the story open for a sequel if one were to be desired, and also in TV (for example, leaving questions unanswered) to keep the reader and/or viewer guessing as to what the answers are. Not sure if this would be considered something else or not, but plot holes are sometimes left to leave doors opened for possible sequels to works. The Mega Man series does this ALOT because sequels for that series are so expected. 24.3.214.213 10:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Better example
Ever since questioning the examples here I've been trying to come up with a better example because I think what we've currently got really aren't plot holes as such - merely conventional mistakes. The only thing I could think of is the Doctor Who adventure The Invisible Enemy where people are taken-over/possessed by an alien and they become villains trying to possess more people. There is no easy way of curing the possession. When the Doctor is possessed, himself and companion Leela are cloned (it is explained that clones created in the method used die after a few hours), shrunk, and injected into the Doctor a la Fantastic Voyage to kill the possessing parasite. The clones are created, and the clone of the Doctor proved to be not possessed, and all goes to plan. Then a possessed villain arrives, has himself cloned, shrunk and injected, and goes after the clone Doctor and Leela to stop them in their quest. So how come the cloned villain remained possessed but the cloned Doctor was not possessed? Plot hole. But maybe it is a bit obscure for the page?! Asa01 19:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Another plothole example?
I remember from one movie... Tiny Toon Adventures: How I Spent My Vacation or something along those lines... One climatic (or is that climaxic?) scene near the end of the movie came to a somewhat anticlimatic end. Basically, the main characters were falling off of a cliff to their certain doom, but ended up falling through some sort of wormhole that deposited them safely back in their hometown. The characters referred to it as a plothole. and poked fun at the (script)writers, commenting that they (the characters) were wondering how they (the writers) were going to pull this one off. Keep in mind that it's been several years since I saw this, though, so my memory is probably a bit fuzzy. Kalo 14:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC) (Edit: Fixed title, added wikilink. Kalo 15:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC))


 * The word is "climactic", I believe. This would not quite fit with the other plot holes given, since Tiny Toon Adventures sort of ran on plot holes. It is, however, a good reference to the Plot Hole phenomenon, and might be worthy of a reference in the article if sources can be cited properly for it. 169.139.190.6 21:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What, no war of the worlds?
Theres heated discussion between fans of the movie and those who think its ridden with plotholes, one quick look at IMDB forums of the movie and there would be at least 1 or 2 topics about a plothole discussion.

The Big Sleep
I'm going to say right out that I haven't seen the film or read the book. However, I find the following section to be a little confusing:

"Howard Hawks' The Big Sleep is a Film Noir classic that has been revered for its overly convoluted plot noted for a major plot hole that has baffled both audiences and the makers and even the writer of the source novel, Raymond Chandler. In the film, a chauffeur is found dead in his limousine which is fished out of the docks. In a later scene, a character admits to knocking the driver in the back of his head and escaping with a roll of film. However, this still doesn't explain how the driver and his car was mysteriously found in the bottom of the sea. This plot hole was present in the source novel as well and when he was asked who killed the driver, Chandler's reply was, 'Damn! I don't know either.'"

As far as I can see, the plot hole in the film concerns how the car ends up in the sea (while the death of the driver was explained), whereas the plot hole in the book concerns 'who killed the driver'. Either this difference should be mentioned or one of the examples needs to be corrected. Branfish 01:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, somebody must have read the book and seen the film, and therefore be able to correct this anomaly. Branfish 00:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I watched this movie somewhat recently and by my recollection the chauffeur is found with the car having been run off the road basically. He got knocked in the head and the parking brake was pulled after the car was pointed at a cliff, by the guy who chased him down and knocked him in the head.  When the chauffeur is found, the homicide detectives explain this down to the blunt force trauma and the brake.   If you watch the movie again you will see that two cars leave after the murder, one driven by the chauffeur, the other by his soon to be murderer.  As for plot, the only part of this movie I found baffling was that the detective keeps going back to the house where the murder of which the police are as far as he knows unaware (but he could have been wrong) occurred.  I haven't read the book but in seeing the movie I wondered if it was a change to save money on sets.  70.112.210.120 (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)(sorry I didn't notice I wasn't logged in ... )Rifter0x0000 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Futurama example
The 'example' from the Futurama episode is a reference to the existence of plot holes, not an example of one. Possibly remove? Marimvibe 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

-or create the section reference

Terminator
The Terminator example as written is incomplete, in the film Reese actually says it's "something about the field generated by a living being."

Examples?
Is there really any reason to have a list of plot holes on this page? MrCheshire 01:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Indeed, is there anything on this entire page which is referenced, verifiable, and not original research? This has led to a lack of overall quality. On my reading at least 50% of the examples are not "plot holes" but simply (a) unexplained or (b) inconsistent with what might be expected in the current real world. Neither (a) nor (b) can fairly be described as a "plot hole" in the highly fictional worlds in most of the examples given. A "plot hole" needs to be a genuine inconsistency or a gross breach of the internal rules of the fictional work. The only decent example on the whole page is from Ocean's Eleven - which can be referenced because it's in the director's commentary. How about deleting all the other examples? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.218.209 (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Hole vs Plot Inconsistancy
I feel that the wording currently at the start of the main page is confusing. The article currently says "A plot inconsistency, mostly confused with a plot hole, is a gap in a storyline that goes against the flow of logic established by the story's plot." but never defines what, according to that person's belief, a "plot hole" actually is. I'm fairly certain that the definition for 'plot hole' (if one existed) would read something like "An inconsistency in a plot or narrative usually stemming from an oversight during creation or caused by the re-adjustment of previously established in-story facts (See: Retcon)". Their correction of the term seems unnecessary, out of place, and quite frankly incorrect.

Also, the subsequent replacement of the terms throughout the entire article feels wrong and forced. By doing a find->replace to change all the occurrences of "plot hole" to "plot inconsistency" and not taking any consideration for the phrasing or usage of the words before hand, this page is painful to read. The example involving Tiny Toons and their actual plot 'hole' makes no sense anymore, and there are several places throughout where the wording is just awkward.

DrakkenZero 06:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually if everybody calls something a plot hole, saying they're all wrong is idiotic. More importantly though the page title is "Plot hole". If a plot inconsistency is something different than a plot hole but both are valid terms, why is this page about plot inconsistencies? Ugh. 130.89.228.82 22:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because everyone uses it doesn't meant that it's wrong... see "The Millenium" starting in 2000 and not 2001 for a good example of the principle. However, yeah, whoever changed the main page obviously just doesn't get it. If there's no further objections, I'm going to try and undo their damage.

DrakkenZero 03:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This entire page is rather dodgy. The entire definition of "plot hole" given here is flat out wrong. There is a big difference between an inconsistency and a hole. A plot inconsistency is something like... a character acting out of character (note that an unlikely event isn't automatically an inconsistency, even though it can be bad writing under certain circumstances). A plot hole on the other hand is something that causes the story to break down. One of the best examples of this is from Citizen Cane. The entire movie centres around a character attempting to discern why a dying man who was alone in a room whispered a word as he dies (rosebud). But the dying guy was alone. No recording device was present. So how did anyone know what he spoke as he died?


 * *That* is a plothole. The entire story falls to pieces once you notice it. Gopher65 talk 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't agree at all. A nurse enters the room immediately after he dies; presumably she was nearby and heard him mutter "Rosebud..." through the door. And possibly the servant Raymond was also standing near the closed door at the time, explaining his later claim to explicitly hearing the word "rosebud". Or maybe Kane even had some kind of baby monitor-type setup in his bedroom so he could be attended to! OK, that's a stretch, maybe, but the scenario still falls short of a definite plot hole. Vonbontee (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Weak Description
I removed the LOST plot hole seeing that it does not make sense and that it seemed a little biased against the show

"As an example of the above, in Lost, the Others are used to explain the main plot holes of the show (ie. why nobody uses the wood from the palm trees in the island to build a boat to get back home, how can the castaways have a perfect civilized life but are unable to fix their plane, etc.). In that case, "a wizard did it" is replaced with "the Others did it"."

They built a raft but the raft was blown up by The Others, who proceeded to take the child on board and seeing as the plane is pretty much rubble from being torn apart on landing, no one can rebuild it. These examples are pretty much crap.--Exer 505 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds less like a plot hole and more like a "justification for a premise".DrakkenZero (talk) 10:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Awful
This article is awful. It has nearly no citations, and is full of fanboi-ish discussion of supposed example plot holes that don't belong in an encyclopedia. As such, I've marked it for deletion since most of the article could be removed anyway! If neutral, unopionionated 'plot hole' citations suitable for an enclycopedia can be found, then they should be added. 81.96.251.179 (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comments on this article, but I'd sugest that it not be deleted since I believe there is a place in an encyclopedia for a "Plot Hole" article. Instead I've removed the examples section.Rubisco (talk) 11:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

'Awful' is only a bit harsh
I came here to make this point, and see that I'm not the first. Then I suppose, I needn't be timid about making improvements. Starting with the beginning, a plot hole is defined as a gap or inconsistency. I dislike this, because a plot hole is always a gap, I think. That's taking the part about it being a 'hole' literally. Now, inevitably, because of this gap, or plot hole, something happens for no logical reason. Also, this is annoying. I can think, however, of many forms that plot holes can come in. And, several reasons why they occur. But, I want to get to addressing this notion that a plot hole is an 'inconsistency'. --Is there any sense in which this is true? Even though, I must I think insist that a plot hole is always a gap. Is it also always an 'inconsistency'? Well, if something is merely left unexplained, that is not, in itself, the end of the world. But something that happens and is impossible because it is unexplained how it might be possible, this is bad, this is a plot hole, and this is, I suppose, in a sense, a contradiction.

I'll suggest that the reference given above, to Citizen Kane, where nobody hears him say 'Rosebud' would be an excellent example. This is definitely a gap -- it is, in some sense, a contradiction. However, the problem is easily solved, if the butler was there, and you're not necessarily positive that he wasn't. I'm not trying to restore the examples section, though. It's just, that I'm still trying to win the argument that 'Plot Holes and Inconsistencies' would not be a redundant phrase. I'm completely behind a policy against 'fancruft' in this or any Wiki article. On the other hand, I'm not trying to refer to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Pokemon.

It may be a bit tricky, in this case, to separate 'fancruft' from the purpose of the exercise. It may be observed, in this connection, that this talk page is lots of fun.

I'm thinking that it would help, in discussing plot holes, to also discuss loose ends. This is a plot thread that has vanished with no resolution, side plots which are never resolved. But the idea with a plot hole, is that 'I have to assume a great deal to reach this'. If I make a list of all the stuff I have to assume to get there, this list should not run long. Such as, maybe Ninjas are responsible for this, and the movie in question is about the battle of Gettysburg, but there's a plot hole and you're thinking 'well, Ninjas are masters of invisibility, if there were Ninjas in this, not that they would really fit, but if I throw them in, then that would explain why all these characters are now dead, when they were not shown to have been attacked, nor is it obvious who might have done it'.

One might, I think, conceive a logical query that is not a gaping plot hole, though this distinction is not really sharp.

Another beautiful example, again one that is mentioned above on this talk page, is Superman 2 where Superman has the ability to extract specific memories from Lois Lane via the medium of a kiss. Where does this ability come from exactly? That's a gaping plot hole. Meanwhile, more of a mere logical query would be from Batman Begins, where you have the plot of using the microwave emitter to vaporize the water supply. The idea being, that the water supply is infected, and everybody will then inhale the toxin. Fine, but most of the human body is made of water, and would have been boiled when the emitter went off. Crucial point, but not in the sense that we care. Once I mention it, it's a gaping hole, though.

I don't come here to try to lengthen this article, necessarily, however. I just think that plot holes are always gaps, which are annoying, and specifically, something happens for no logical reason.

Having meditated on this a bit further, then, in the end, I'm still of one mind -- I agree w/the statement above, that 'This entire page is rather dodgy. The entire definition of "plot hole" given here is flat out wrong. There is a big difference between an inconsistency and a hole.'

Furthermore, that point above, is contradicted flatly. This one of those cases of somebody who is right, being corrected, I think. I'm taking sides. The offending passage (above) is this: 'Don't agree at all. A nurse enters the room immediately after he dies; presumably she was nearby and heard him mutter "Rosebud..." through the door. And possibly the servant Raymond was also standing near the closed door at the time, explaining his later claim to explicitly hearing the word "rosebud". Or maybe Kane even had some kind of baby monitor-type setup in his bedroom so he could be attended to! OK, that's a stretch, maybe, but the scenario still falls short of a definite plot hole.'

I guess it seems to some, that 'plot hole' means 'blatant logical contradiction that cannot be resolved', but this overlooks what makes a 'plot hole' a 'hole'. It's a gap, and gaps can be resolved. This is my two cents. Of course, these terms are used informally, these are abstract terms, and apparently we have not achieved a consensus. To me, if there should be some earlier establishing info, and it is missing, then that is just like if it actually was there, and you just weren't paying attention. It's a plot hole to you. But then, when you watch it again, it makes sense -- oh! there's no plot hole! It's not 'just too ridiculous', of course that's where the alien egg in Alien 3 came from! For example.

I'm bending over backwards, here, but this notion that a plot hole is a 'gap *or* inconsistency' might be in reference to something like Legolas' inability to bring down the dude carrying the torch that blows up the wall, in the Two Towers. However, Legolas's numerous attempts to shoot the guy are all successful, it's a hit, in a weak point, each time. So I think there's no problem to speak of, here, with suspesion of disbelief, or contradiction. However, Legolas suddenly missing wildly, forgetting his archery skills, would be an inconsistency. One that might be explained if he was distracted by pain, or somesuch -- then, if you want to be really fanboyish, any inconsistency can be willfully categorized, employing much special pleading, as only a plot hole.

DanLanglois (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Examples
Shouldn't the article have an example or two? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why no examples?
Why no interesting examples? The article is poor. Is there a method to avoid the plot holes when writing? The article needs more info and analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:747F:788B:7728:AA20 (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The External Links
The list of External Links are all examples of debunked plot holes, or supposed plot holes that are NOT plot holes. Does anyone agree it would make more sense to provide external links to examples of actual plot holes, according to the definition? This would remove the need to fill this article with every popular plot hole in existence. pjsdunne 12:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjsdunne (talk • contribs)

“Plot Holes” is just lazy criticism
While i’d agree that sometimes it’s appropriate to point out a writers mistakes in a work when done well and with the thought of improving a work is involved, I often see “Plot Holes” as an example of overly dramatic nitpicking, due to in part; in a belief that authors owe the audience an explanation for every minute detail. The article should say “perceived mistakes” a creative choice may or may not sit well with an audiences, but over explaining it won’t fix their problems. 2601:201:8101:E5E0:E57E:7949:A200:29A6 (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)