Are 'plot holes' an excuse?

[nick2150]

I've noticed a trend of late. Whenever someone takes a dislike to a new film, the first point anyone seems to make is 'there were too many plot holes for me to enjoy the film'

What do you guys think? are new films subject to more plot holes than classic films, or do you think people are just looking to tare things down these days because everyone's a critic?

 

[Vault101]

heres how I see it

1. I don't notice it the first time? thats ok

2. I notice it the second time? hmmm could have done better

3. I notice it the FIRST time? yeah...thats bad

 

[Thaluikhain]

Depends on how well they paper them over. Internal inconsistencies that aren't addressed can be very annoying and hurt suspension of disbelief.

 

[Evonisia]

If I noticed it while I was watching, reading or playing it, then yes it's a problem.

If I didn't notice it until somebody told me, well I'd say that it managed to be this good/bad even with the plot holes.

As for "newer" films, well I'm guessing it's just another excuse as looking outdated or fake isn't really all that common these days.

 

[Keoul]

I wouldn't exactly call it an excuse seeing as it is kind of a deal breaker for some.

I didn't enjoy the avengers that much because of plot holes like the hulk freaking out despite being always angry (just going by what he says before he punches the worm thing), the whole "kill the mother ship and everything dies", and blunt trauma to the head being an instant remedy for magical brain washing.

It's just little things that build up.

 

[King Billi]

For my part I sually don't really care much about plot holes, so long as the film is engaging then I'm usually more than willing to overlook such things, hell if I'm really engaged then I probably won't even notice them at all.

However if the film is boring or unenjoyable in other ways then I'm going to be alot less forgiving of plot holes, when there's nothing else to focus on.

In the end though they're just not a major factor I use in determining whether a given film is good or not and if I notice on in a film I already like then it won't instantly turn me against it. If you look hard enough I'm sure you'll find them in practically any film.

 

[twistedmic]

From what I've seen, most 'plot holes that people find aren't really plot holes. Most of the time the 'plot holes' is really just a case of not paying attention, misunderstanding a key scene or just simply dislike a part of the movie/show/etc.
So I will have to say that it is a way of trying to tear down a movie. And that is part of the fairly recent issue of people disliking whatever is popular at the moment.

 

[Zhukov]

If I don't notice, or I do notice but I'm too absorbed to care, then I'll happily overlook all the plot holes in the world.

It would be better if they weren't there at all I guess, but I'm happy to acknowledge that they exist without necessarily saying it makes the movie crap.

 

[CloudAtlas]

What do you guys think? are new films subject to more plot holes than classic films ...

No.

... or do you think people are just looking to tare things down these days because everyone's a critic?

Yes. Plot holes are just relatively easy to spot. They're also relatively objective, logical - some story element makes sense or it does not. Or at least that's what people who love to complain about plot holes tend to believe; there's always a grey area, of course. Doesn't mean that plot holes always are the actual reason why a movie didn't work for someone even if he believes they were. It's just that the many other possible reasons are much harder to understand and to talk about, and thus people are jumping to the easier conclusions.

Of course that doesn't mean that plot consistency doesn't matter at all. Even an otherwise supremely told story will eventually collapse when the plot holes become too numerious and too large for even the most immersed viewer to ignore.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I'd say no, plot holes aren't simply an excuse, though there is definitely some truth to the notion that not all plot holes are actually plot holes but are simply the viewer not paying enough attention. There's also truth to the idea of plot holes being much easier to spot, realize, and explain than other issues that one may have with a movie.

However, plot holes have the potential to completely destroy suspension of disbelief entirely, either through there being way too many smaller plot holes or one massive plothole (or both) that's too much to ignore. Plot holes can also affect one's opinions on a rewatching (or whatever the medium's equivalent is, in the case of things that aren't movies or shows), though it's definitely the plot holes that are noticed the first time around that are the most damning.

Spoiler: For a personal example...

MLP:FiM had a two-parter called "A Canterlot Wedding". The thing that killed these potentially great episodes for me were that - particularly in the second episode - the plotholes got so horribly out of hand that the entire thing just crashed and burned even with all the good things the episodes had going for them. Whether it was the main villain and her army suddenly losing 200 IQ points in the final act or by having the villain singlehandedly one-hit KO the strongest pony in the series - in perfectly healthy condition, btw - only to have the villain herself and her entire army get one-shot insta-nuked by two crippled / wounded ponies later on. No, I don't buy that the power of love is so strong to where Cadence and Shining Armor while half-dead could eclipse a perfectly healthy Celestia that much, unless you wanna convince me that Mr and Mrs Cake are also superponies well beyond Alicorn Princesses. Yes, I'm still bitter. DX<

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I don't ordinarily mind plot holes, but if the whole movie is built on one... well, I have to make an X-Men: Days of Future Past thread about it.

 

[Tanis]

It's one thing when it's a small hole.
Like if the year got mixed up.
-He was born in 1960 in the first movie, but was 10 years old during 1068 in the second movie.

It's another thing if it's a huge hole.
Like why was he born with fours eyes in one movie, but has two heads with three eyes each in the second film.

 

[Fox12]

I've noticed a trend of late. Whenever someone takes a dislike to a new film, the first point anyone seems to make is 'there were too many plot holes for me to enjoy the film'

What do you guys think? are new films subject to more plot holes than classic films, or do you think people are just looking to tare things down these days because everyone's a critic?

Well, classic films are classic BECAUSE they didn't have plot holes. It's not that film is necessarily worse, I'm sure movies from the 1940's had plot holes too. It's just that we've forgotten all the bad movies, and so only the very best films from those old eras remain. Heck, I wouldn't even say the plot holes criticism is even a recent criticism. We have literary and story criticism going all the way back to the Ancient Greeks. That's where we get terms like Deus Ex Machina.

That said, plot holes certainly hurt a movie/book/game. If a character has the power to heal any injury, for instance, but they magically forget they have that power when a character is shot, then the audience is going to wonder why the character didn't use the ability. The writer wanted to have an emotional moment, but they didn't bother to work around their logical problems, and that's a legitimate complaint. When you're forced to stop watching the movie and question the characters decisions, it takes you out of the experience. The problem compounds if the character in question was a doctor, or if a supposedly genius general makes incredibly stupid decisions, and it's not recognized as stupid within the story. It's nothing new, really.

 

[Flammablezeus]

Almost everything has plot holes. However, I've also seen people point out several "plot holes" that were actually explained in the work of fiction being discussed. That tends to annoy me even more than actual plot holes. I noticed this a lot after Man of Steel came out last year for example. Sure, it does have plot holes, but the ones that I personally saw people focusing on weren't even actual plot holes, it was more that the viewer hadn't really paid attention or had forgotten details.

That said, I don't really mind them if they're not too noticeable. However, that's pretty subjective, since different people will notice different things.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

It depends. If a film gets me on side, so to speak, then I'm willing to allow all kinds of nonsense. If I respond to the characters, or the emotional arc or overall 'point' (if there is one), then by the time I've noticed it (usually by people on Teh Internetz being anally retentive and pointing it out... ) I'm too sentimentally fond of the thing, and I've tied up all the loose ends via logic defying subconscious rationalisation.

Can't think of a film right now, but BioShock Infinite's a perfect example. I don't think any of its actual plot ties up in a neat temporal bow, but the narrative of Booker and Elizabeth had me thoroughly hooked. The plot strands didn't really make sense - but the emotional arc absolutely did (to me, at least).

Not sure if it counts as a plot hole, per se, but Inception's often criticised for not hanging together and suffering from Because Reasons design. If it does? I couldn't care less. I've always been too busy being awed by Zimmer's brilliantly noisy yet beautiful score, and all the shiny visual spectacle.

 

[gagagaga]

People tend to prioritize plot holes when criticizing fiction because they are tangible things to point out as "bad". Most people don't examine fiction critically, so they just grasp the nearest thing to justify why they didn't like something. I think nerds focus on plot holes way, way too much and not enough on if the characters or themes were any good.

Besides, half the time the "plot hole" is something either explained in the work itself and they weren't paying enough attention, or could be explained with about five seconds' thought.

 

[Kotaro]

I don't mind pointing out plot holes, though even some of the best movies ever have them. Even if they don't necessarily affect your enjoyment of the film, it can be fun to look for them. They're not a problem as long as they don't hurt the film overall.

What bugs me though is when people like the Nostalgia Critic or Spoony point out "plot holes" that aren't really plot holes and can be explained if you either pay attention or just think about them for five minutes.

 

[MysticSlayer]

I'd say a vast majority of the plot holes I see brought up are just people complaining about something they didn't pay enough attention to or decided to turn their brain off before piecing together various bits of information found throughout the rest of the story. That's not to say there aren't legitimate complaints, but most of the time it normally is just coming from some angry person who missed or forgot important pieces of information and calls "bullshit" every time you point that out to them. In other words, I tend to not take people seriously when they start talking about plot holes unless they can actually back it up and are willing to carry a conversation when challenged without their opening word being "bullshit".

Oh, and then there are also the people that find something they don't understand in the early stages of the film and complain for the rest of the movie. Because, you know, there are never any plot twists in a movie or big reveals of past information...Oh wait! There are. Question all you want, but don't ignore the possibility that it may get explained later. And for crying out loud, when it is explained, don't demean the movie as if it was unfair or just stupid. It outsmarted you. Admit it...Sorry, I have had really bad experiences with people doing that.

With that said, if there is a legitimate plot hole, I can definitely see why someone wouldn't enjoy the work. Plot holes present flaws in the logic, and for anyone who looks at works in a more logical way, that can be a serious hinderance.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

Plot holes that aren't immediately noticed I can handle, usually. But things that I see and go, "Wait, why are they doing that?" drive me nuts. Heroes, the show, is a perfect example. So many characters had powers that could have solved EVERY problem that arose single handed, but they refused to use them intelligently. Peter Petrelli was particularly guilty of this. Sylar, the resident favorite baddy, could copy powers, but he had to kill people to do so, which makes him strong but at least somewhat fightable. Peter could copy people he stood near and then gained their power permanently with no harm done. WHY DIDN"T HE SOLVE EVERY PROBLEM?????????? Oh right, because the writers decided they goofed with his power level and made him an idiot instead.