Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by James Slattery, Aug 5, 2017.
If Clark Kent had gone to work in tights, everyone would have known.
It is a plot device so the audience will remain sympathetic to those characters because they actually did no harm financially. It is like those PG action movies where the bad guys all manage to get up after some horrific sequence to show our hero is not a murderer. The third Gibson Mad Max movie was a prime example.
What I mean is that this is not a plot hole.
A movie exists in its own universe and would have established such boundaries. In Casablanca it was established early on those letters cannot be questioned and that Victor Lazslo will not be captured while in Casablanca based on whatever treaty they quoted. You can also argue and be correct that the Nazi would have just shot Victor. But logic would sink this and perhaps other films.
A plot is flawed if it breaks its own rules or failed to establish it. If you bring logic, science into movies then sci fi, horror or any time travel theme wouldn't work; or if biopics need to be fully accurate historically.
To piggyback on this point, Doc Brown probably wouldn't show up in the parking lot to begin with. Presumably, he knows about the shooting 30 years in advance after he pulls Marty's letter from the garbage and tapes it back together. Not only would he not show up in the parking lot, he probably wouldn't rip off the Libyan terrorists. Of course, all of these choices set off a plethora of paradoxes. If he doesn't rip off the terrorists and show up in the parking lot, Marty wouldn't jump into the DeLorean to escape from the terrorists and be accidentally transported back to 1955. The very act of reading that letter immediately pollutes the timeline, because Doc Brown has knowledge of events 30 years in advance and will inevitably make different choices based on that foreknowledge. But of course, making those different choices creates a paradox in which he never learns of his shooting 30 years in advance, so he won't read the letter and events will unfold as they did in the film. And so on and so forth. The grandfather paradox.
Easier to train astronauts to drill, than to train drillers to be astronauts (Armageddon)
Dunno if that's a "plot hole" as much as it is an eye-rolling leap of believability!
When ever Elvis turned his radio on, it was at the start of an instrumental number that Elvis knew the words...amazing
Yeah, I get that it was a cool visual "bit" to make it obvious to mass audiences that Bad Things Could Happen.
There are some very interesting revelations in the huge Secret History of Star Wars magnum opus, and one of them is how many plot holes came up over the years that Lucas has tried to ret-con and otherwise explain or cover up. The biggest one is that Vader and Anakin Skywalker were always intended to be two different characters, but they came to the conclusion when Empire was being rewritten that it made more sense just to throw in the towel and combine them as one man.
Well the good guys in those movies read the script. By the time they do, it's too late though.
It's about the journey not the destination.
Lucas spent too much time reading Joseph Campbell..
I agree but I was just pointing that as a cheat it was very clever and no one thought about it until they got hope, had a snack....by then they had their money! It was a bit of a stretch as well.
We don't see that but she does "act" for the cameras.
I always figured that he paid someone through another inmate on the outside to forge the documents.
I always thought that he licensed stuff out for manufacture and then had Wayne Enterprises also design some of it pricing it too high for the army and by compartmentalizing it, you could cover it up. The Batmobile (the Tumbler) came from a military contract that went kaput.
Of course what do I know.
To the people pointing out how laughable Superman's disguise with his glasses were-Christopher Reeve does an excellent job of transitioning from one character to the other by adjusting his posture, sense of self confidence is evident in his stance as well. It's a nice moment and reminded me what a fine actor he was.
Someone mentioned Armageddon, easily on my Top Ten big budget awful movie list. How about the spacecraft having a 50 cal(or whatever) machinegun on board that Steve Buscemi could use to shoot a hole in the wall of the ship. Just going from a memory many years old but I seem to recall that. Of course the plothole is, why does a spacecraft, going to an asteroid to drill and then place a nuke or two in it to blow it up, need a heavy machinegun on board? Makes about as much sense as a seasoned driller chasing his daughter's fiance around an oil and gas production platform firing shots at him......
They made the entire trip at sub-light speed.... it just took a lot longer.
The movie doesn't make it very clear, but there's actually a considerable amount of time that has passed when the Falcon arrives at Cloud City... it's been at least a few weeks, or maybe even months.
Those were dumb times. Michael Bay was preparing for his other "masterpieces"
Of course as I was plotholing a Michael Bay film (akin to shooting pigeons in the park) I was watching Sharknado 5; Global Swarming so, there's that to consider.
Oooh...that entire movie is a plot hole – actually very bad "science".
They even make a point to say the little spaceships are powered by the mothership. Then, the heroes destroy the mothership via that goofy computer virus and proceed to fly their spaceship back to earth.
And the little spaceship has human-sized controls? Even after they showed the aliens inside those huge battle suits..?
And it's impossible that Airforce One was able to stay ahead of that explosion. The air would have been disrupted to the point where an aircraft couldn't fly at all, let alone not being engulfed.
"Independence Day" is the movie that turned me off that entire genre. Previously, I'd been able to check my brain at the door when it came to summer blockbusters. But, that movie was SO stupid...
wayneklein wrote the following as part of a post:
Sounds like something from the old radio shows, where one cast member directs another to the script.
...or in G. I. Joe where all of "casualties" only involve robots.
In MILLION DOLLAR BABY, the events are recalled by Morgan Freeman's character, many of which he couldn't have possibly witnessed. This convention is a frequent plothole in movies. IIRC, it even happens in CITIZEN KANE.
I always thought the prologue to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN was a cheat, as the old veteran's face dissolves into Tom Hanks' Captain Miller, only to be revealed in the end as Private Ryan.
I disagree re Do The Right Thing, but get where you and James Slattery are coming from. I can't remember Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome apart from it wasn't very good and it had Tina Turner in it.
On one commentary track, they say at one point things were tense between America and Russia. With both sides about to launch manned missions to Mars, they would put machine guns on vehicles just in case. But the real reason was the marketing people said teenage boys love vehicles with guns.
There is a theory that in "Casablanca" Peter Lorre is not saying "DeGaulle", but "Weygand" who was an important figure in Vichy France. It's just his accent makes it hard to hear clearly and Charles DeGaulle is more familiar to today's audiences than Maxine Weygand.
In "Battleship", do museum ships such as the "Missouri" carry live ammuntion for 16" main guns and 40mm anti aircraft guns?
Separate names with a comma.