That moment you notice a huge plot hole in the story

[BNguyen]

Iron Man 3.

Spoiler

No one in Alaska recognizes Tony Stark, one of the wealthiest, most famous and succesful businessmen in the world and also a superhero who freaking flew a nuke into space in The Avengers, and in the very same movie has called the Mandarin out on live TV whilst surrounded by cameras? But hey, if he's wearing a baseball cap and a hoodie, then apparently that makes you just Joe Blow by default.

Apparently the alleged Mandarin's hiding place can be easily broken into by one guy with a bunch of homemade gadgets, despite being possibly the greatest secret in the world right now, and certainly the most vital in the real villain's plan. Gah, stupid stupid movie!!!!

Okay a few things here -
1st - not Alaska, its Tennessee, just because there's snow doesn't mean he's that far up north
2nd - yes, not many people are going to recognize somebody who's in the dark - you do realize that most of the shots when he's in Tennessee are at night so unless the people are up close and actually know the man and care, they aren't going to recognize somebody when they can't clearly see their face
3rd - the actual Mandarin's hideout was a secret, the fake Mandarin was a bit easier to find because it wasn't exactly being hid and the guards weren't exactly competent in their jobs

 

[Fsyco]

I remember noticing a ton of plot holes when I went to replay Sonic Adventure 2, a game I loved as a kid. It felt really, really surreal, and felt like kind of a let down. I remembered the story being so cool when I was younger, but replaying it I couldn't stop noticing the problems.

The major plothole involves how Grand-pappy Robotnik managed to upload the video of his execution (and by extension the program for the ARK to crash into Earth) after he'd been detained. And that's not even getting into why the government arrested him in the first place, since it seems he was doing research they requested. It's also kind of weird how they left the ARK functional and didn't find and/or disable the giant frickin' cannon that they knew he was building. Shadow the Hedgehog addressed some of these but....well the less said about that game the better.

 

[Kyrian007]

I have always maintained that in fiction there is no such thing as a "plot hole." It happens the way the author SAYS it happens, because that person is the author and thus CREATED the world in which said seemingly impossible thing happened in. All such "plot holes" can be "solved" with one or more or all of the following explanations.

1. The author didn't bother to explain the situation because the explanation was deemed not important enough to be added to the narrative. (In other words, "nobody cares but you" or "nobody important cares.")

2. The author hasn't explained the situation yet. How does anyone but the author know that this "plot hole" isn't actually a "dangling thread" that the reader (viewer, whatever) was supposed to notice that will be explained later? No one else CAN know that.

3. A Wizard did it.

There, all so-called "plot holes" in works of fiction solved... forever.

Naa, it just bothers me when people worry about plot holes in fiction. Like the above examples involving Harry Potter. People actually worry about the political ramifications of veratserum (sp?) when in the same series of books, there is a sport where people on flying broomsticks chase around a flying, sentient, golden ball?

 

[bartholen_v1legacy]

snip about Rei

I can't believe I'm doing something that could be considered defending this piece of crap, but I guess with Rei you could chalk it up to the fact that she's basically a robot devoid of free will or thought. If she was ordered to retrieve Shinji, she probably did just that, and ONLY that. But then it begs the question that if Gendo knew Shinji was with NERV, why didn't he order Rei to just fuck them up good in the first place... AAARRRHGHGHGHG SMASH THIS SUTPID MOIVE!!!!

I have always maintained that in fiction there is no such thing as a "plot hole." It happens the way the author SAYS it happens, because that person is the author and thus CREATED the world in which said seemingly impossible thing happened in. All such "plot holes" can be "solved" with one or more or all of the following explanations.

1. The author didn't bother to explain the situation because the explanation was deemed not important enough to be added to the narrative. (In other words, "nobody cares but you" or "nobody important cares.")

2. The author hasn't explained the situation yet. How does anyone but the author know that this "plot hole" isn't actually a "dangling thread" that the reader (viewer, whatever) was supposed to notice that will be explained later? No one else CAN know that.

3. A Wizard did it.

There, all so-called "plot holes" in works of fiction solved... forever.

Naa, it just bothers me when people worry about plot holes in fiction. Like the above examples involving Harry Potter. People actually worry about the political ramifications of veratserum (sp?) when in the same series of books, there is a sport where people on flying broomsticks chase around a flying, sentient, golden ball?

People worry and ***** about plot holes because they're flaws that take them out of the piece of fiction, be it movie, book or whatever. Suspension of disbelief and all that. And if the plot hole is big enough, it can ruin the work of fiction for a person permanently. This doesn't have much to do with this, but I remember someone on the Escapist once saying that dragons in fiction can breathe fire because that's how they're established, but we still expect the fire to behave in a way identical to our world, because that's how we instinctively understand it. If the fire doesn't, say, light wood on fire, but does the same thing to metal without it being established (eg. there could be some "special fire" dragons breathe, just as an example), the illusion is broken and we're left thinking "Wait, why... what... how?"

 

[Megalodon]

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Spoiler

Potter's name comes out of the Goblet. He's selected as a second, unexpected competitor for Hogwarts. He doesn't want to compete, none of the teachers want him to compete, and his school already has a champion.

So why not just... not compete? Just have Harry say, 'no, I don't want to, this is a misunderstanding, I didn't put my name in there'. Harry could have refused. What are they going to do, force him? And bam the whole of the bad guy plan falls apart in an instant.

I don't remember he particulars of it, but there was something about the contract being with the goblet itself, which is a power that neither the school nor the ministry has control over. I don't remember the consequences for not participating, but there was definitely something said about the goblet being a binding contract of some sort.

But even if Harry's magically shanghaied into competing, he doesn't need to do well. They even make a plot point of this with everyone hating Harry before the first task, he's already essentially wizard Jesus, why should he care about the glory of the competition, let Cedric do it. Just sit down opposite the Dragon and wait until the Judges call it and give him zero, maybe borrow the voice enhancer from Quidditch commentating and explain to the crowd. If questioned, he's two years younger than he should be to compete, doesn't know as much magic as the other Champions and they weren't supposed to know about the Dragons before the task anyway. Perfect excuses for not being able to circumvent a Dragon. Harry loses the tournament, boo hoo, and the evil scheme falls apart.

 

[happyninja42]

snip about Rei

I can't believe I'm doing something that could be considered defending this piece of crap, but I guess with Rei you could chalk it up to the fact that she's basically a robot devoid of free will or thought. If she was ordered to retrieve Shinji, she probably did just that, and ONLY that. But then it begs the question that if Gendo knew Shinji was with NERV, why didn't he order Rei to just fuck them up good in the first place... AAARRRHGHGHGHG SMASH THIS SUTPID MOIVE!!!!

I have always maintained that in fiction there is no such thing as a "plot hole." It happens the way the author SAYS it happens, because that person is the author and thus CREATED the world in which said seemingly impossible thing happened in. All such "plot holes" can be "solved" with one or more or all of the following explanations.

1. The author didn't bother to explain the situation because the explanation was deemed not important enough to be added to the narrative. (In other words, "nobody cares but you" or "nobody important cares.")

2. The author hasn't explained the situation yet. How does anyone but the author know that this "plot hole" isn't actually a "dangling thread" that the reader (viewer, whatever) was supposed to notice that will be explained later? No one else CAN know that.

3. A Wizard did it.

There, all so-called "plot holes" in works of fiction solved... forever.

Naa, it just bothers me when people worry about plot holes in fiction. Like the above examples involving Harry Potter. People actually worry about the political ramifications of veratserum (sp?) when in the same series of books, there is a sport where people on flying broomsticks chase around a flying, sentient, golden ball?

People worry and ***** about plot holes because they're flaws that take them out of the piece of fiction, be it movie, book or whatever. Suspension of disbelief and all that. And if the plot hole is big enough, it can ruin the work of fiction for a person permanently. This doesn't have much to do with this, but I remember someone on the Escapist once saying that dragons in fiction can breathe fire because that's how they're established, but we still expect the fire to behave in a way identical to our world, because that's how we instinctively understand it. If the fire doesn't, say, light wood on fire, but does the same thing to metal without it being established (eg. there could be some "special fire" dragons breathe, just as an example), the illusion is broken and we're left thinking "Wait, why... what... how?"

Exactly, it's more of an issue with internal consistancy. Most people are willing to accept whatever strange and fanciful thing you make up to tell your story, but then when you directly contradict that aspect for your plot, it makes it a glaring problem. I don't care for a story to be 100% accurate to the real world, I want it to be 100% accurate with itself. But when a director/writer establishes a plot element in Act 1, and then does something in a later Act that directly contradicts this, it's annoying. An example I use.

You are doing a movie on a planet with low gravity, this is pointed out and established, and used to justify the protagonist doing certain things that are not possible on earth, like lifting up heavy objects easily. Ok, fine, no problem. Then, 30 minutes later, you have that same hero on the edge of a precipice, clutching at the hand of a friend who is about to fall to their death. And you show the hero straining and grunting, unable to lift their friend to safety and.....NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo*intake of breath*oooooooooooooo. *splat* Ok, so why couldn't he lift him up? You showed him picking up a motorcycle easily in a previous scene, and now he can't lift a person weighing maybe 100 pounds (if not less) in this gravity? Come ooooon!

The above is an example I just made up, not from any specific movie/book, but it illustrates what I mean about being internally consistent with your plot elements. And when you aren't, it stands out and makes us go "Wait, why did that happen?" When the only reason you can use to explain it is "because the plot needed it to happen that way" then you've got a plot hole.

 

[Lieju]

I don't remember he particulars of it, but there was something about the contract being with the goblet itself, which is a power that neither the school nor the ministry has control over. I don't remember the consequences for not participating, but there was definitely something said about the goblet being a binding contract of some sort.

One would have to believe the Wizarding World to be so completely, utterly incompetent that it couldn't figure out a way to do such a thing without endangering an innocent person. There isn't any way to stop someone from putting your name in against your will otherwise. I mean, Harry got drawn because it was tricked into thinking there was a fourth school of one person, but even still, this seems easy to bypass and especially problematic given the lethality.

I'm fairly certain there were precautions in place to make it impossible for someone else to put your name in the goblet.
They were clearly not enough though.

They were mainly prepared for underaged kids trying to get in, they managed to put in an enhancement that rejected students trying to cheat by aging themselves for example.

But even if Harry had entered into some kind of magical contract, why not just not make an effort? Just give up at the beginning of every test?

The wizarding world definitely has not heard of health and safety though...

My problem with it was the whole evil plot with the Triwizards tournament.
It seemed way too overly complicated to just get Harry to a portkey. Even if we assume you normally can't have portkeys at Hogwarts without Dumbledore's knowledge, why not just wait for the summer, turn a boot into a portkey and throw it at Harry or something???

 

[DrOswald]

Pacific Rim. Do I even need to say it?

Spoiler

The sword. Seriously? WHERE WAS THAT ALL THOSE TIMES YOU WERE GETTING YOUR ASS KICKED? Why did you ONLY use it ONCE??? They don't even TRY to justify it's absence up until that one scene in the movie or after the fact. The movie is already written like a mediocre anime, but that one scene just plunged it into bad anime territory for me. If I wanted gratuitous robot violence with baffling plot points, I'd watch G Gundam, because at least it's hilariously nonsensical.

That is super easily explained: The sword is a shitty backup weapon that isn't very effective.

The Jeagers all fight with a strategy. Crimson Typhoon cut the Kaiju to pieces. Cherno Alpha beats them to death. But Gypsy Danger and Striker Eureka beat them until they slow down the monster enough to have an opening and then use short range finisher weapons. The plasma gun reduces a Kaiju to a hollow husk in a few shots. Cutting weapons were far less effective, as we saw with Crimson Typhoon - their successful cutting attacks hardly phased the Kaiju. I mean, later on they literally stab a Kaiju though the head with the sword and it was basically only effective at pinning it down while they burned it to death on a thermal vent.

Just because the sword was tactically ideal in that one exact moment does not mean that it is a god smiting super weapon with no flaws. It is a subpar weapon that they only use when they can't use their guns. They were out of ammo when they used it the first time, they were under water where their guns would not work later.

Bull. Shit.

That sword sliced CLEAN THROUGH that Kaiju. And it was HUGE. Most of the movie they use their robot fists! How is that "tactically superior" to a SWORD in ANY situation? Even if some of the Kaiju are armored (which I don't think any of them were, at least over any other one seen), the concussive force from a GREATSWORD would FAR outweigh any damage a fucking fist could do. Except in a bad anime (which this movie is). And I don't even remember them using their gun, which highlights just how big of a role that thing played in the fights.

The sword sliced though two Kaiju: The first was though a single fairly thin wing when the kaiju was 100% not defending itself. The second time the Kaiju charged strait at Gypsy Danger and completely failed to even try to avoid the blade. It was not the sword that was good there, it was the Kaiju that was moronic. All Gypsy Danger had to do was hold up the sword, they didn't even have to try attack. A steel wire can cut clean though a human if the human moves at it quickly enough. That doesn't make it a great weapon. When the Kaiju completely fails to defend itself and takes action that specifically enhances the way a blade edge works, yes the sword is good.

And I never said the fist was "tactically superior" to the sword. I said that the sword is an inferior backup to their usual strategy of shooting the Kaiju repeatedly with a plasma cannon. A strategy which had proven highly effective up to that point, as Gypsy Danger suffered almost no damage in the fight against Leatherback.

Also, a great sword? Did you even watch the movie? They are closer to a long knife, maybe a short sword, in scale. If Gyspy Danger was 6 ft tall then the sword would be about 18". And if you were paying attention you would notice that the sword is attached to the arm in a way that would prevent them using their guns until it is retracted, a process that would likely take a great deal of time given the segmented nature of the blade - it might not even be possible in the field. So they have the option of using a superior melee weapon while rendering that arm's plasma cannon, a near instant kill weapon, useless.

If you don't remember them using their gun then you were not paying attention, because it is how Gypsy Danger killed 2 kaijus. And how Mako almost blew up the base when she was freaking out. And a short sequence when Gypsy Danger "double taps" a kaiju, where they fire their guns at a kaiju for about ten seconds strait and make a really big deal about it. And then it's the entire reason they even pull out the sword the first time as they make a big deal out of having no ammo.

 

[Trooper924]

Also from the Harry Potter series...

Spoiler: just in case anyone hasn't read it yet...

Veritaserum.

The very existence of that stuff made so many things in the series make no sense...

Harry knows about it from the middle of book 4, doesn't offer to take a dose and tell his story of how Cedric died while under it's influence.

Heck, Dumbledore-possibly the most brilliant wizard of all time is standing right there when the Minister of Magic dismisses Harry's story and never suggests the use of veritaserum to confirm it.

Sirius in all the time he was in prison never tells anyone "I didn't betray James and Lily, give me some veritaserum and I'll tell you the truth about what happened!"

A lot of Death Eaters got off the hook by claiming they had only done the things they did because they were under the influence of the imperius curse... ministry never uses veritaserum to confirm any of their stories....

Even if the stuff was really hard to produce, given it's applications the ministry should have had a dozen expert potion makers brewing the stuff night and day!

JK does give this one a handwave:

Spoiler: also just in case anyone hasn't read it yet

JK has said that just like polygraphs in real life, veritaserum isn't completely infallible and there are ways to trick it. So even if Sirius did willingly take veritaserum and say he was innocent, no one would believe him anyways, since a powerful dark wizard-like they believe Sirius to be-would be able to resist it.

Plus, it's mentioned that there are antidotes to it; Dumbledore specifically says they can't use veritaserum on Slughorn because the latter carried the antidote with him at all times (and Dumbledore didn't want to force anyways).

 

[mistahzig1]

I do not have any specific examples at hand, but ANYTHING involving a deus ex machina makes my blood boil.

That's the most hated plot device I can think of

 

[Asclepion]

I can't believe I'm doing something that could be considered defending this piece of crap, but I guess with Rei you could chalk it up to the fact that she's basically a robot devoid of free will or thought. If she was ordered to retrieve Shinji, she probably did just that, and ONLY that. But then it begs the question that if Gendo knew Shinji was with NERV, why didn't he order Rei to just fuck them up good in the first place... AAARRRHGHGHGHG SMASH THIS SUTPID MOIVE!!!!

OK, so that has an explanation if you are willing to throw out everyone's development from the last 2 films.

Where does WILLE get the resources for their cyborg whale skeleton flying fortress battlestation (and douchebag crew)?

 

[Little Woodsman]

I don't remember he particulars of it, but there was something about the contract being with the goblet itself, which is a power that neither the school nor the ministry has control over. I don't remember the consequences for not participating, but there was definitely something said about the goblet being a binding contract of some sort.

One would have to believe the Wizarding World to be so completely, utterly incompetent that it couldn't figure out a way to do such a thing without endangering an innocent person. There isn't any way to stop someone from putting your name in against your will otherwise. I mean, Harry got drawn because it was tricked into thinking there was a fourth school of one person, but even still, this seems easy to bypass and especially problematic given the lethality.

I'm fairly certain there were precautions in place to make it impossible for someone else to put your name in the goblet.
They were clearly not enough though.

They were mainly prepared for underaged kids trying to get in, they managed to put in an enhancement that rejected students trying to cheat by aging themselves for example.

But even if Harry had entered into some kind of magical contract, why not just not make an effort? Just give up at the beginning of every test?

The wizarding world definitely has not heard of health and safety though...

My problem with it was the whole evil plot with the Triwizards tournament.
It seemed way too overly complicated to just get Harry to a portkey. Even if we assume you normally can't have portkeys at Hogwarts without Dumbledore's knowledge, why not just wait for the summer, turn a boot into a portkey and throw it at Harry or something???

Even the precautions against under-age students putting their names in the Goblet were a joke-- seriously no one ever thought "What if a student gets/makes a paddle long enough to reach the distance from outside the age line to the Goblet, and puts the slip of paper with her/his name on the end of it and just tips the paper in from outside the line?"

Don't get me wrong, I love the series and the 4th book is my favorite installment... but it's so full of holes that it actually *is* funny.

And

Spoiler: spoilered just in case...

Love the point about getting Harry a Portkey... with a perfectly disguised agent (who Harry trusted) on the grounds why not just call Harry in to his office, tell him to have a seat and point to a chair that had been turned in to a portkey?
Come to that, why not have the agent approach Harry during a Hogsmeade visit, ask him to step aside for a few moments and once the agent had him alone tell him "Something you need to see." and get him to travel to Voldemort's location *willingly* via side-along apparition?

 

[Kyrian007]

I have always maintained that in fiction there is no such thing as a "plot hole." It happens the way the author SAYS it happens, because that person is the author and thus CREATED the world in which said seemingly impossible thing happened in.

People worry and ***** about plot holes because they're flaws that take them out of the piece of fiction, be it movie, book or whatever. Suspension of disbelief and all that. And if the plot hole is big enough, it can ruin the work of fiction for a person permanently. This doesn't have much to do with this, but I remember someone on the Escapist once saying that dragons in fiction can breathe fire because that's how they're established, but we still expect the fire to behave in a way identical to our world, because that's how we instinctively understand it. If the fire doesn't, say, light wood on fire, but does the same thing to metal without it being established (eg. there could be some "special fire" dragons breathe, just as an example), the illusion is broken and we're left thinking "Wait, why... what... how?"

Exactly, it's more of an issue with internal consistancy. Most people are willing to accept whatever strange and fanciful thing you make up to tell your story, but then when you directly contradict that aspect for your plot, it makes it a glaring problem. I don't care for a story to be 100% accurate to the real world, I want it to be 100% accurate with itself. But when a director/writer establishes a plot element in Act 1, and then does something in a later Act that directly contradicts this, it's annoying. An example I use.

You are doing a movie on a planet with low gravity, this is pointed out and established, and used to justify the protagonist doing certain things that are not possible on earth, like lifting up heavy objects easily. Ok, fine, no problem. Then, 30 minutes later, you have that same hero on the edge of a precipice, clutching at the hand of a friend who is about to fall to their death. And you show the hero straining and grunting, unable to lift their friend to safety and.....NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo*intake of breath*oooooooooooooo. *splat* Ok, so why couldn't he lift him up? You showed him picking up a motorcycle easily in a previous scene, and now he can't lift a person weighing maybe 100 pounds (if not less) in this gravity? Come ooooon!

The above is an example I just made up, not from any specific movie/book, but it illustrates what I mean about being internally consistent with your plot elements. And when you aren't, it stands out and makes us go "Wait, why did that happen?" When the only reason you can use to explain it is "because the plot needed it to happen that way" then you've got a plot hole.

Wow, some people can't suspend disbelief enough to let something like that go? Does that person understand the concept of fiction? You know... isn't actually real. No, not really. Seriously though, stuff like that doesn't bother me at all. See it, notice it, fly right by. Either continue to enjoy or hate whatever I'm watching. I just don't get people who can obsess over so-called plot holes when (like in the Harry Potter example) they're willing to just accept the existence of magic wizards and flying broomsticks but "oh noes, something implausible happened... HATEHATEHATEHATE." But like in your "lo-grav" example, the important part would be the loss of the friend. Who he was to the main character and what his loss will mean to the rest of the story. Maybe it just wasn't important enough to mention that the friend had just shaken hands with a popcorn vendor. Or maybe later in the story (or series) the main character realizes he should have been able to save his friend, then it hits him... the plot twist "his friend was the villain all along."

I guess I would worry about "internal consistency" in something like a documentary. Or maybe something supposedly based upon actual events. If there were a movie based upon the actual search for a real serial killer. If I spotted an obvious timeline contradiction... that might bother me. "Found Footage" style movies DO annoy me, so maybe there's my plot hole hangup. In fiction... it?s just not important. It didn't actually happen, so I'm not left wondering how it actually happened.

To me suspension of disbelief in reading fiction (or tv or movies) is kind of an all or nothing proposition. If I'm willing to believe any of it, it just makes sense to go ahead and accept all of it. May as well, none of it actually happened anyway and I'm just viewing for enjoyment.

 

[b.w.irenicus]

Wow, some people can't suspend disbelief enough to let something like that go? Does that person understand the concept of fiction? You know... isn't actually real. No, not really. Seriously though, stuff like that doesn't bother me at all.

Good for you, some people howeever abre bothered by flaws in internal consistency. I myself am luckily not good at spotting plotholes, but when I do, it just takes me out of the movie or game or whatever.

To me suspension of disbelief in reading fiction (or tv or movies) is kind of an all or nothing proposition. If I'm willing to believe any of it, it just makes sense to go ahead and accept all of it. May as well, none of it actually happened anyway and I'm just viewing for enjoyment.

Again, your are watching it for enjoyment and it doesn't bother you, howeever other people's enjoyment may be heavily derogated by bad writing and plotholes.
And example I experienced myself (spoiler): The movie The Butterfly Effect establishes, that the protagonist can travel back in time to specific important events of his life. By acting differently there he changes his present. When he returns in his present, everything arounf him changed and he is the only one who remembers how it was before, because to everbody elese, the new present has always been how things happend (I hope it could explain ist well enough). Thats basicially the whole point of the movie, he goes back in time, tries to fix things and ends up doing more damage than he fixed. And noone belives him about his time-traveling, because like I said, to everybode else, this has alway been how things went. But at one point, the movie totally contradicts its own time-travel-logic: The protagonist trys to win over some religious guy, therefor travels back in time, impales his hands on twoe nails and returns. The religious guy immediately goes on like "Wow, jesus-stigmata appeared out of nowhere!" What? They should not have appeared according to the movies own logic, but rather always have been there. Thats the point of the movie. He cant prove his time-traveling to anybods and even end up in an asylum at one point. But here and only here the movie just decides "fuck it" and buttfucks its own premise, because apparently the writes didn't know how else to solve the situation.
Now many people might just shrug something like that of, personally, I just lost all interest in this - up to this point quite intriguing - movie.
Long story short: Fiction does not excuse shitty writing.

Edit: I mean really, "its just fiction, I might as well believe everything"? What if in Lord of the Rings in the last book out of nowhere they suddenly solved the conflict with Mordor by using the tactical nuke, they stored below Gondor. I mean, it's just fiction, might as well buy it all, right?

 

[SajuukKhar]

Why did I immediately think of Evangelion 3.0 again? Please, make it stop!

Most of these are explainable

1. Because Rei is in a super healing mega-Evagnelion and in the air they are vastly outmatched against it, as shown when Rei's Eva kicks their ass in the ending, also, NERV HQ is bound to have defenses

2. Because they didn't even know if it WAS Shinji himself, or just some weird Eva created look-alike, hence why they kept calling him by some medical name instead of Shinji.

3. He lets the collar kill him for the same reason he let Shinji kill him in the show, humanity can only continue to exist if all the angels are killed, and he knows this.

4. Because they are forever stuck physically as 14 years old so their brains literally cant grow to mature.

The reason you die activating the McGuffin is because your father releases a fuckton of radiation inside the control room earlier in the plot to attempt to kill whats-his-face (can you tell I have a hard time with names?). It doesn't have anything to do with the GECK. You die because of extreme radiation.

And having played most of Fallout 1 and part of Fallout 2, the GECK has always been a magical world-creating device, hasn't it? I mean, its name is "Garden of Eden Creation Kit". Its whole point is to make the world anew after everything goes to shit. I think the term is "terraforming"?

This is false.

You die because the machine took damage due to Liberty Prime's assault, and due to possible enclave sabotage, something Doctor Li tells you right before you enter the purifier.

Nothing your father did damaged the machine in any way or caused YOU to die.

Spoiler: Rei Q and Misato

Why doesn't Rei Q crush the fuck out of Misato as soon as she appears?

Rei Q is a different clone than Rei from the first 2 Rebuild movies, who apparently doesn't have any memories of her other incarnation. Rei Q is tasked with rescuing Shinji from the AAA Wunder. She boards the vessel and is opening her palm to Shinji when the enemy commander enters, holding a weapon at him.

Rei Q has no reason to patiently wait for them to argue while Shinji is being threatened. Unit Mark.09 could have just smashed Misato like a fucking bug, giving her no chance to detonate the DSS Choker.

Spoiler: Mari

So Mari's allied with (what was originally) Nerv now? After the last movie where she is some kind of agent with her own agenda that we never find out? And hijacks one of their Evas?

There's no explanation!

There is.

1. Rei Q doesn't kill Misato and gang, even though she could, because she wasn't ordered to by Gendo. Gendo didn't order ReiQ to kill Misato because he needed her and WILLE alive as part of his stupidly elaborate plan to stop SELEE's version of third impact and instead have his version happen. Everything that happened in Eva 3.0, from WILLE getting Eva 1 back, to Karouw getting his head blown off, was all part of Gendo's plan.

2. Mari is allied with WILLE now, she apparently worked for the EPA, a north American counterpart to NERV, previously. Also, she never hijacked an EVA, the EPA ordered NERV to release Eva 2 to her, because its their EVA, and falls under their jurisdiction since it was locked up in their base.

 

[Aramis Night]

I have always maintained that in fiction there is no such thing as a "plot hole." It happens the way the author SAYS it happens, because that person is the author and thus CREATED the world in which said seemingly impossible thing happened in.

People worry and ***** about plot holes because they're flaws that take them out of the piece of fiction, be it movie, book or whatever. Suspension of disbelief and all that. And if the plot hole is big enough, it can ruin the work of fiction for a person permanently. This doesn't have much to do with this, but I remember someone on the Escapist once saying that dragons in fiction can breathe fire because that's how they're established, but we still expect the fire to behave in a way identical to our world, because that's how we instinctively understand it. If the fire doesn't, say, light wood on fire, but does the same thing to metal without it being established (eg. there could be some "special fire" dragons breathe, just as an example), the illusion is broken and we're left thinking "Wait, why... what... how?"

Exactly, it's more of an issue with internal consistancy. Most people are willing to accept whatever strange and fanciful thing you make up to tell your story, but then when you directly contradict that aspect for your plot, it makes it a glaring problem. I don't care for a story to be 100% accurate to the real world, I want it to be 100% accurate with itself. But when a director/writer establishes a plot element in Act 1, and then does something in a later Act that directly contradicts this, it's annoying. An example I use.

You are doing a movie on a planet with low gravity, this is pointed out and established, and used to justify the protagonist doing certain things that are not possible on earth, like lifting up heavy objects easily. Ok, fine, no problem. Then, 30 minutes later, you have that same hero on the edge of a precipice, clutching at the hand of a friend who is about to fall to their death. And you show the hero straining and grunting, unable to lift their friend to safety and.....NOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooo*intake of breath*oooooooooooooo. *splat* Ok, so why couldn't he lift him up? You showed him picking up a motorcycle easily in a previous scene, and now he can't lift a person weighing maybe 100 pounds (if not less) in this gravity? Come ooooon!

The above is an example I just made up, not from any specific movie/book, but it illustrates what I mean about being internally consistent with your plot elements. And when you aren't, it stands out and makes us go "Wait, why did that happen?" When the only reason you can use to explain it is "because the plot needed it to happen that way" then you've got a plot hole.

Wow, some people can't suspend disbelief enough to let something like that go? Does that person understand the concept of fiction? You know... isn't actually real. No, not really. Seriously though, stuff like that doesn't bother me at all. See it, notice it, fly right by. Either continue to enjoy or hate whatever I'm watching. I just don't get people who can obsess over so-called plot holes when (like in the Harry Potter example) they're willing to just accept the existence of magic wizards and flying broomsticks but "oh noes, something implausible happened... HATEHATEHATEHATE." But like in your "lo-grav" example, the important part would be the loss of the friend. Who he was to the main character and what his loss will mean to the rest of the story. Maybe it just wasn't important enough to mention that the friend had just shaken hands with a popcorn vendor. Or maybe later in the story (or series) the main character realizes he should have been able to save his friend, then it hits him... the plot twist "his friend was the villain all along."

I guess I would worry about "internal consistency" in something like a documentary. Or maybe something supposedly based upon actual events. If there were a movie based upon the actual search for a real serial killer. If I spotted an obvious timeline contradiction... that might bother me. "Found Footage" style movies DO annoy me, so maybe there's my plot hole hangup. In fiction... it?s just not important. It didn't actually happen, so I'm not left wondering how it actually happened.

To me suspension of disbelief in reading fiction (or tv or movies) is kind of an all or nothing proposition. If I'm willing to believe any of it, it just makes sense to go ahead and accept all of it. May as well, none of it actually happened anyway and I'm just viewing for enjoyment.

The problem that myself and I think a lot of other people have with plot holes isn't that it asks us to accept certain fantastical elements. It is more that the universe itself makes it a point to establish certain limitations and then runs roughshod over those supposed limitations in ways that are not consistent. The author/creator can make whatever rules they like. It is when they clearly seem to forget the properties that they themselves put into their creation.

My favorite illustration of this is a henchman firing at superman with their gun. The bullets just bounce off harmlessly. The henchman runs out of ammo. The henchman throws the now empty gun at superman. Superman ducks to avoid being hit by the thrown gun.

 

[Shiftygiant]

Spoiler: Skyfall

Oh there are so many problems with this damn car being in the film. Sure it worked as fan service, seeing the Daniel Craig Bond with the classic James Bond car, but it broke the story so much. The one thing that everyone just kind of went with when it came to James Bond was that his face would change as the actor would change and that no real explanation was needed to say why, and as the films went on, the tech would change to suit the release date and everybody would just go with it. Then they added in the DB5 into Skyfall and everything broke. How old is James Bond? That car was released in 1963, and he must've been at least 18 to drive that thing, so that makes him 50, but when Sean Connery played Bond when the DB5 first appeared he was 34, so that would make Daniel Craig's Bond 66. But isn't Craig's Bond a reboot? Well seeing as this car exists, it puts that into question too. The only real explanation that I can think of is that James Bond is in fact a Time Lord, because otherwise nothing makes sense and it makes my head hurt.

Car's aren't destroyed the second the year ends, and it's not unreasonable to assume that Craig's Bond had a thing for cars like this. Just because the DB5 was made in the 60's does not mean someone wouldn't own in present day. I've seen a few myself, being driven by people in there 30's. It's more than likely that Q Branch gave Bond the car (His 00 privileges?) because it was outdated tech. Once more, a car being old does not make the driver old.

 

[SirDerpy]

Wow, some people can't suspend disbelief enough to let something like that go? Does that person understand the concept of fiction? You know... isn't actually real.

Well, uh, yes, that is indeed the definition of fiction. And, uh, I'm pretty sure you're one of the few people who would let something like that go.

I mean, we're not complaining that it's unreal. We all love ourselves some good fantasy and superheroes and other impossible shit. We're complaining that the author insists on fucking their own rules in the butt: that's what plot holes are.

Take, say, Harry Potter. Now, I can't think of any plot holes off the top of my head, since I haven't seen/read them in a long time, but I'll make up an example: in Prisoner of Azkaban, the Whomping Willow plays a fairly large part in the plot, especially in the climax. Specifically, the second and third books emphasize the fact that the Whomping Willow, well, whomps everything that it encounters. So we have the fact that the Whomping Willow smashes things. It is an established, in-universe, fact. Then, in the climax, when Ron is being dragged through the passage below the Whomping Willow and Harry and Hermione give chase, the Whomping Willow does nothing to stop them.

Now, disclaimer, this is false (the Willow actually does cause a problem for Harry and Hermione). But what I'm asking is, what if it was like that? The Willow's tendency to whomp things was important throughout the second and third books, and all of a sudden, during the climax, it just doesn't move, just for the convenience of our heroes? That is to say, it goes against something that the author made a huge deal about previously.

That's the kind of plot hole that really gets on the nerves, especially if it goes unresolved. If maybe the author said "oh there's a spell that can freeze the Willow", that's fine...although why the fuck wasn't this spell used in the last novel?. If, in the gravity example above, "oh, biological substances weigh equally as much as they do on Earth", that's...a bit of an asspull, but it's not a plot hole. The issue I have is when these are completely unexplained, when big plot points are created or averted for no reason whatsoever. It's like me making a big deal about having to walk to school everyday, lamenting my existence, except I have a car. But screw that! The fact that I have to endure the hardship of walking to school is much too important, so we'll just forget the other, equally true fact that I have a car.

Oh, I want to show Superman's capacity for self-sacrifice: have him jump in front of a gun to take a bullet meant for his love interest or something. Then show a very tearful hospital scene and we will have all this sweet drama and stuff. Feels all around. Except, wait a minute, Superman is invincible against bullets. Why the hell is he not now? Bonus plot-hole points if, like the above poster's example, Superman was actually shown deflecting bullets with his abs just before getting wounded by one.