Plotholes and other things that annoy you (Spoilers)

[TheLastInLine]

With Iron Man 3, couldn't it just be chalked up to "JARVIS are the suits ready to be mass deployed and AI controlled? No? Okay." sort of thing? I can't remember most of the movie so maybe something in it just dismisses that as a possibility .

I recently bought thr Blu-Ray and they never mentioned anything like that at all.

And since Harry Potter is a children's series it really doesn't matter, it's a staple of children's fantasy and sci-fi to introduce convenient plot elements just to keep the story movie.

They can be still fun to mention though, but don't think too hard about it.

Oh absolutely, other than the aforementioned wands changing hands thing (which was a real "what? Since when? Why has this not been the case for the last 6 and 3/4 books" moment).

But for the sake of a couple of examples, in prisoner of azkaban they show that wizards are capable of going back in time. Why didn't someone just go back and kill Tom Riddle?

Also why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before cedric died? We know he witnessed and remembers his mum's death.

Or that they make a huge deal about Harry being able to speak parsl or whatever the snake language is called in english. That it is extremly rare and only people who arerelated to Slytherin can speak it and it is a bad omen. And suddenly Ron can speak it perfectly well just by listening to Harry in his sleep.

[thatblindgeye]

Yeah, I don't think anything like that was mentioned, but could that just be the assumed reason for why he did it at that point and not any sooner? It seems like "JARVIS is it done yet?" has been done a couple of times in the movies already, so I could buy that as to why he waited until the end to use all the suits at once.

You guys talking about Harry Potter being a good series to get kids into reading and shit and I just read the books this past Summer

[TheLastInLine]

Yeah, I don't think anything like that was mentioned, but could that just be the assumed reason for why he did it at that point and not any sooner? It seems like "JARVIS is it done yet?" has been done a couple of times in the movies already, so I could buy that as to why he waited until the end to use all the suits at once.

You guys talking about Harry Potter being a good series to get kids into reading and shit and I just read the books this past Summer

I guess you could argue that Tony couldn't activate the protocol while his suit was destroyed after the attack on his house because without a working suit there is no way for him to comminicate with Jarvis. But as soon as the suit is working again there is no excuse. And there is still no explanation as to why he didn't activate it when the heavily armed helicopters destroy his home

Some people have argued that he couldn't summon tje suits becauae they are buried beneath the rubble and ruins of his villa. But let's be real: an army of Iron Man suits (of which at least one is designed to carry heavy load) are stalled by a bunch of rocks? Really?

[Matt]

With Iron Man 3, couldn't it just be chalked up to "JARVIS are the suits ready to be mass deployed and AI controlled? No? Okay." sort of thing? I can't remember most of the movie so maybe something in it just dismisses that as a possibility .

I recently bought thr Blu-Ray and they never mentioned anything like that at all.

And since Harry Potter is a children's series it really doesn't matter, it's a staple of children's fantasy and sci-fi to introduce convenient plot elements just to keep the story movie.

They can be still fun to mention though, but don't think too hard about it.

Oh absolutely, other than the aforementioned wands changing hands thing (which was a real "what? Since when? Why has this not been the case for the last 6 and 3/4 books" moment).

But for the sake of a couple of examples, in prisoner of azkaban they show that wizards are capable of going back in time. Why didn't someone just go back and kill Tom Riddle?

Also why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before cedric died? We know he witnessed and remembers his mum's death.

Or that they make a huge deal about Harry being able to speak parsl or whatever the snake language is called in english. That it is extremly rare and only people who arerelated to Slytherin can speak it and it is a bad omen. And suddenly Ron can speak it perfectly well just by listening to Harry in his sleep.

Fairly sure Ron was just repeating something he'd learnt from Harry and it didn't work a couple of times because he can't actually speak it. I'd hardly say he can speak it perfectly well anyway

[Benjamin]

It's been a bit since I watched Avengers, but when Banner transforms against his will, isn't it always because of some outside force? Like, when Loki is in his cell and mindfucking every one of them so that they all get angry with each other.

I can't recall a point in the movie when Banner just randomly transforms without some kind of outside force making it happen... which would make that a non-plothole, because when he's not being tampered with, he's completely in control, just as he said he was.

I can't remember them hinting at his ability to control his powers. I get that when he hulks out before the big battle he does it by his own accord and not out of anxiety or anger. But it still seems weird to me that he does it with such surprising ease despite him bein scared of hulking out during the entire movie. Maybe if they added a line of Dialoge instead of just this vague "I'm always angry" mantra it would have been more clear to me. But as is, this is just a minor annoience in an otherwise enjoyable movie.

Also, I'm pretty sure The Joker just says he doesn't have a plan to send Harvey Dent into madness. Of course he has plans, but it's believable that he doesn't. He plays Dent, which, ironically, was part of a plan.

Point taken. Still doesn't explane why a bunch of Arkham Inmates and street thugs are somehow the most reliable crew in town. I know a lot of it has to come down to rigid schedule and planing. But there sre just some thing that sre a bit too hard to forsee [for example i doubt that he planed on being captured by the police. I think Gordon's Resurrection took him by surprise. Or does he have thugs with explosives implanted into them on standby?].

I know it sounds like I must hate this movie but you couldn't be more wrong. It is my favorite comic book move. It's just that when it comes to the joker there seems to be a lot of coincidence involved.

I think with the Joker, he always had that plan to have that guy with the cell phone explosive inside him in case he ever got caught.

Remember, Batman had all the baddies in Gotham afraid, and Joker was hired to get rid of him. Joker's plan was to show Gotham that the city wasn't a better place with Batman in it (which is kinda' true ) and that's why he orchestrated all the destruction that occurred. Also he was going to get paid a shit ton of money for getting rid of Batman, and that's probably why the street thugs followed him. After that, when he burnt it all, it was more the Arkham guys who simply saw Joker bring a shitload of destruction to the city and thought it was great, so they continued to follow him because destruction for Arkham patients is like their high.

I'm probably stretching a bit here and there, but it's not out of the realm of possibility.

[Benjamin]

With Iron Man 3, couldn't it just be chalked up to "JARVIS are the suits ready to be mass deployed and AI controlled? No? Okay." sort of thing? I can't remember most of the movie so maybe something in it just dismisses that as a possibility .

I recently bought thr Blu-Ray and they never mentioned anything like that at all.

And since Harry Potter is a children's series it really doesn't matter, it's a staple of children's fantasy and sci-fi to introduce convenient plot elements just to keep the story movie.

They can be still fun to mention though, but don't think too hard about it.

Oh absolutely, other than the aforementioned wands changing hands thing (which was a real "what? Since when? Why has this not been the case for the last 6 and 3/4 books" moment).

But for the sake of a couple of examples, in prisoner of azkaban they show that wizards are capable of going back in time. Why didn't someone just go back and kill Tom Riddle?

Also why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before cedric died? We know he witnessed and remembers his mum's death.

Or that they make a huge deal about Harry being able to speak parsl or whatever the snake language is called in english. That it is extremly rare and only people who arerelated to Slytherin can speak it and it is a bad omen. And suddenly Ron can speak it perfectly well just by listening to Harry in his sleep.

Fairly sure Ron was just repeating something he'd learnt from Harry and it didn't work a couple of times because he can't actually speak it. I'd hardly say he can speak it perfectly well anyway

No, I thought it was weird too. I always thought Parseltongue was a special ability, because even though it's supposed to be just a language, the book portrays it as some sort of special ability, only for Slytherin heirs.

[Matt]

He just imitated the noises though, he didn't know what he was saying and he only did it to open the locket iirc not actually to communicate with snakes.

[TheLastInLine]

He just imitated the noises though, he didn't know what he was saying and he only did it to open the locket iirc not actually to communicate with snakes.

Still before that they played it up as this huge thing that only a chosen few can speak an that it is a bad omen and the whole shabang. And Ron, who usually is the slowest of the group, to be able to imitate parsle goes against that. Ron is supposed to be stupid god damn it!

[gunnar hendershow]

With Iron Man 3, couldn't it just be chalked up to "JARVIS are the suits ready to be mass deployed and AI controlled? No? Okay." sort of thing? I can't remember most of the movie so maybe something in it just dismisses that as a possibility .

I recently bought thr Blu-Ray and they never mentioned anything like that at all.

And since Harry Potter is a children's series it really doesn't matter, it's a staple of children's fantasy and sci-fi to introduce convenient plot elements just to keep the story movie.

They can be still fun to mention though, but don't think too hard about it.

Oh absolutely, other than the aforementioned wands changing hands thing (which was a real "what? Since when? Why has this not been the case for the last 6 and 3/4 books" moment).

But for the sake of a couple of examples, in prisoner of azkaban they show that wizards are capable of going back in time. Why didn't someone just go back and kill Tom Riddle?

Also why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before cedric died? We know he witnessed and remembers his mum's death.

Or that they make a huge deal about Harry being able to speak parsl or whatever the snake language is called in english. That it is extremly rare and only people who arerelated to Slytherin can speak it and it is a bad omen. And suddenly Ron can speak it perfectly well just by listening to Harry in his sleep.

Fairly sure Ron was just repeating something he'd learnt from Harry and it didn't work a couple of times because he can't actually speak it. I'd hardly say he can speak it perfectly well anyway

Yeah I think that's basically what was to be understood there.

Really the only thing in Harry Potter that I'd sit here and say "come on J.K. that's kinda dumb" is the whole time travel thing. It's such a difficult plot device to even place into a story, but the endgame is as easy as going back in time and killing Tom Riddle. That's all they needed to do, problem solved and there's no series at all to write since nobody dies and such. But of course, on the same token, doing so would completely alter the future and who knows what would change. Summary: time travel is a lot of fun but writers should really only implement in certain situations.

Another thing about time travel is why the hell Skynet only set back one Terminator. Wouldn't you want to go into the past guns blazing? Again there's probably no movie if this happens, and Salvation did try to explain it as Skynet only had the power to send back one because it had been so weakened, but it's just one of those things (like my earlier Star Wars mention) that seems completely to go against what the villain would reasonably do.

On the topic of Star Wars, and given the order they were written in part of this makes sense, but Darth Vader seems to have zero recollection of the last vestige of his mother and his youth--C3PO. Same goes for R2D2 mind you, but C3PO is so important to him in the prequels yet Vader mentions nothing about knowing him. Obviously C3PO had his memory wiped, but Vader didn't.

[Mick]

With Iron Man 3, couldn't it just be chalked up to "JARVIS are the suits ready to be mass deployed and AI controlled? No? Okay." sort of thing? I can't remember most of the movie so maybe something in it just dismisses that as a possibility .

I recently bought thr Blu-Ray and they never mentioned anything like that at all.

And since Harry Potter is a children's series it really doesn't matter, it's a staple of children's fantasy and sci-fi to introduce convenient plot elements just to keep the story movie.

They can be still fun to mention though, but don't think too hard about it.

Oh absolutely, other than the aforementioned wands changing hands thing (which was a real "what? Since when? Why has this not been the case for the last 6 and 3/4 books" moment).

But for the sake of a couple of examples, in prisoner of azkaban they show that wizards are capable of going back in time. Why didn't someone just go back and kill Tom Riddle?

Also why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before cedric died? We know he witnessed and remembers his mum's death.

Or that they make a huge deal about Harry being able to speak parsl or whatever the snake language is called in english. That it is extremly rare and only people who arerelated to Slytherin can speak it and it is a bad omen. And suddenly Ron can speak it perfectly well just by listening to Harry in his sleep.

Fairly sure Ron was just repeating something he'd learnt from Harry and it didn't work a couple of times because he can't actually speak it. I'd hardly say he can speak it perfectly well anyway

Yeah I think that's basically what was to be understood there.

Really the only thing in Harry Potter that I'd sit here and say "come on J.K. that's kinda dumb" is the whole time travel thing. It's such a difficult plot device to even place into a story, but the endgame is as easy as going back in time and killing Tom Riddle. That's all they needed to do, problem solved and there's no series at all to write since nobody dies and such. But of course, on the same token, doing so would completely alter the future and who knows what would change. Summary: time travel is a lot of fun but writers should really only implement in certain situations.

Another thing about time travel is why the hell Skynet only set back one Terminator. Wouldn't you want to go into the past guns blazing? Again there's probably no movie if this happens, and Salvation did try to explain it as Skynet only had the power to send back one because it had been so weakened, but it's just one of those things (like my earlier Star Wars mention) that seems completely to go against what the villain would reasonably do.

On the topic of Star Wars, and given the order they were written in part of this makes sense, but Darth Vader seems to have zero recollection of the last vestige of his mother and his youth--C3PO. Same goes for R2D2 mind you, but C3PO is so important to him in the prequels yet Vader mentions nothing about knowing him. Obviously C3PO had his memory wiped, but Vader didn't.

"I have accepted that you were once Anakin Skywalker, my father."

"THAT NAME NO LONGER HAS ANY MEANING FOR ME

I take it that Vader hates himself so much, he doesn't want anything more to do with who he was, Threepio included. I mean, it was a wedding present to a woman who's death he was told he was responsible for. Not exactly something he'd want to dwell on. Furthermore, in both trilogies there are numerous 3PO units. I'm sure See-Threepio wasn't the only one with that color scheme, just as Artoo wasn't the only blue R2 unit.

As far as Skynet goes in the Terminator franchise, obviously with the films being written years and years apart it's tought to get around, but for story, it does bother me how they sent the T-1000 then the T-X. Put Reese against either one of those things, see where it gets him. I just pretend that there was no Terminator 3, to be honest. It was riddled with continuity errors out the ass, and just a pretty shit movie in general.

Since this topic is "Other things that annoy you", here's one from Twister:

Bill (about Jonas): He's in it for the money, not the science.

How horrible! This man that's spent how many years pursuing a Ph.D in meteorology has decided to go out and get corporate sponsership to develop a device that can provide incredible research into how a tornado works. Meanwhile, your pals are all driving complete pieces of shit with equipment that's breaking down, and they're nearly out of cash.

Rocky V:

Robert's age. I know Rocky went to train for a while in Siberia, but wow and damn, that's an incredible growth spurt .

[9 to 5]

Rocky V: They took his brain scan the wrong way round.

[King Ellis]

In all seriousness, the Indiana Jones one has been around for a while. I'd say it is pretty accurate.

Back to the Future

In Back to the Future, Doc sends Einstein into the future by one minute. The Delorean disappears for that entire minute. We can then conclude that in this universe if you travel forward in time you cease to exist until you re-emerge.

In Back to the Future 2, Old Biff gives Young Biff the sports magazine. When Marty and Doc returns to the future, Biff is now super rich and controls everything. From this we conclude that in this universe time travel occurs on one timeline and anything you do in the past automatically changes the future you are travelling to.

So, when Marty and Jennifer get into the Delorean and travel to the future with Doc in Back to the Future 2, they CEASE TO EXIST on the timeline until the re-emerge in the future. Yet, not only has nothing changed, they actually run into themselves! By the logic already put forward, they would re-emerge in the future with no record of themselves since they disappeared. And definitely no kids.

And one more thing. If the past changes the future, there is no reason to go into the future to stop bad things from happening. Either the stop it from happening, go back in time and live their life as usual were the kid still gets himself in trouble, or if Marty simply knowing this was going to happen is enough to stop it from happening again, simply tell him and return to the future to find that it doesn't happen!

This is an entry in an FAQ that appears on the Blu-ray for the movies and I guess is also online in various places:

To be honest, yes, it very well should erase their existence from the future. This is, in fact, the ultimate paradox of Back to the Future Part II. We really thought about this one for a long time, but we finally decided that after the set-up of Doc saying "Something's got to be done about your kids," the audience would feel cheated if we went to the future and found out they didn't exist.

You could, however, argue that existence of Old Marty, Old Jennifer and their kids in the future automatically proves that young Marty and Jennifer will eventually get back to 1985. The flaw in this reasoning is that Doc repeatedly tells us that the future isn't written, so why would this part of the future be "written?" Ah, but Back to the Future Part III may contain the answer to this question after all. When Doc spots the tombstone in 1885 and sees that the name on the photograph of the tombstone has vanished but the date remains, he says "We know this photograph represents what will happen if the events of today continue to run their course into tomorrow."

That's a pretty big "if." And it suggests that time travel to the future always takes you to a future based on the events of the time you left — a logical extrapolation of what the future of that moment holds. Of course, the existence of free will allows for the possibility of infinite futures, which is what Doc says at the end of Back to the Future Part III: "Your future is whatever you make it." But time travel into the future takes you to the most likely future of the moment you left.

[Mick]

With BTTF, you just need to apply a little Bill and Ted logic, like how they say they'll do this or that once they get through their present task, and viola, there's the shit they need.

I'm going on the assumption in BTTF that the second Doc took Marty and Jennifer into the future, since it was successful, all he'd have to do is drop them back off in 1985 and everything would be okay. I don't want to think too hard about that for obvious reasons, but it's the easiest one for me to wrap my head around.

[HC]

Why wasn't Kane in Citizen Kane?

Just wait until the WWE Films remake.

[angeluzcr]

It's been a bit since I watched Avengers, but when Banner transforms against his will, isn't it always because of some outside force? Like, when Loki is in his cell and mindfucking every one of them so that they all get angry with each other.

I can't recall a point in the movie when Banner just randomly transforms without some kind of outside force making it happen... which would make that a non-plothole, because when he's not being tampered with, he's completely in control, just as he said he was.

Exactly,when Banner gets angry by an outside force(like almost dying in an explosion) he had no control,but if He choose to transform (learned at the end of Incredible Hulk),He can aim Hulk at something especifically.

Dark Knight:

Gordon fake his death so the Joker won't go after Him.

Joker has a plan,He just doesn't care if it works or not (Hence the "I want You to do it", when Batman was about to run him over).

Rises:

Bruce was problaby thinking He was going to die that night figthing Bane,so one last fling looked good.

Edited December 15, 2013 by angeluzcr

[Sousa]

It bothers me in National Treasure that the British guy (Ian? Liam? Benedict Cumberbatch?) is discussed as if he's this guy with unlimited resources who's a super-genius and in the very next scene we see him figuring out a puzzle by looking it up on Google.

[Colly]

It bothers me that Sousa has watched National Treasure paying enough attention to remember plot details, rather than just the fact its horrific.

[Sousa]

My wife really likes it.

[Cymbols]

And since Harry Potter is a children's series it really doesn't matter, it's a staple of children's fantasy and sci-fi to introduce convenient plot elements just to keep the story movie.

They can be still fun to mention though, but don't think too hard about it.

Oh absolutely, other than the aforementioned wands changing hands thing (which was a real "what? Since when? Why has this not been the case for the last 6 and 3/4 books" moment).

But for the sake of a couple of examples, in prisoner of azkaban they show that wizards are capable of going back in time. Why didn't someone just go back and kill Tom Riddle?

Also why couldn't Harry see the thestrals before cedric died? We know he witnessed and remembers his mum's death.

As for why he couldn't see the Thestrals after his mum died, you could argue that he didn't remember it, due to his age- he did say that he could only remember the flash of light, not the physical instance of his mum getting hit by the curse. Alternatively, you could say he didn't understand the concept of death at the time, so he wasn't really affected at the time.

But one plot point is that he didn't actually see Cedric dying, as he had his eyes closed, so technically he wouldn't be able to see them until Sirius died.

[Mick]

It bothers me that Sousa has watched National Treasure paying enough attention to remember plot details, rather than just the fact its horrific.

Then this will bother you even more.

Ol' Ned and his gang were looking things up on Yahoo. Nick Cage and his pals were looking things up on Google.

Which particular puzzle was it they were looking up? The Key In Silence Undetected? I can't really blame him, because fuck you if I'm cracking a code by hand